Yes, re-read my post. I said it doesn't make sense to label a graphics format "textual" versus "binary", cause that's just a difference of which basis you use: is it base 256, or base 2? It doesn't matter, right? It's only a difference of a fixed constant factor of space.
The post I was originally responding to, in part, made the claim that SVG was silly because it used a "textual" representation. But, by the above argument, labeling something as textual doesn't really help matters. A vector graphics format can, in certain cases, represent considerably more information than even a highly JPEG-compressed bitmapped image. Consider the example of a black background with a white diagonal line going through it. That's two operations for a vector format.
But, in other cases, bitmapped representations are better: imagine a vector representation of an Monet painting. This probably isn't the right domain for a vector representation, and the vector representation will probably be huge compared to a JPEG-compressed bitmapped representation (and maybe even an uncompressed bitmapped representation.
Your argument is awesome. But, if what you say is true (and I think it is: one platform makes for stability through uniformity), then why "cripple" the computer? Why not just produce a full-fledged WinNT box (perhaps with an optional "easy cheesy" interface ala the MacOS's "easy finder" a few years back -- can't remember the name of it), but which box has the UNIFORMITY property?
Why dumb it down by default? I totally agree that uniformity is neato (for certain folks), but why not allow people to buy it as their main machine, as well?
Unless I am missing something, and this is the plan! Does anyone have a list of disabled features?
You can't be seriously comparing bitmapped to vector graphics? A "textual" representation of a bitmap just makes no sense. A bitmap is just that: a map of bits (the 19th entry is a 1), in the same sense that this post is a map of ASCII characters (the 19th entry is an "s"). Observe that ASCII encodings are going to be shorter than bitwise encodings, but only by some fixed constant factor (log256/log2). Also observe that both a raw bitmap and this post are compressible (they probably contain contain lots lots of redundancies:P).
Now, a vector representation of graphics is an entirely different beast. Instead of using 0s and 1s or As and Bs, you use high-level parameterized operations, like DRAWLINE(3x5,5x9). It would be akin to me encoding this document with things like: STANDARDREPLY(sillypost,verbose=9).
In other words, by using high-level primitives, rather than raw data, the size of a vector representation is simply not comparable to a raw representation. It is algorithmic encoding, using domain-specific knowledge (that you are drawing vectors).
Hola, if you read the FAQ it specifically says that Linux users on PCs should enter "Windows". I suppose we can infer that Linux users on Macs should enter "Macintosh"?:)
In response to the other's complaint of no "$0" option: seems like $10 a year for internet access is pretty good! 'Specially if their claims of "helping the world" (???) are valid.
Are you familiar with aspect-oriented programming?
http://www.parc.xerox.com/csl/projects/aop/
They claim that, whereas OBJECTS symbolize encapsulation and "locality" of ideas, ASPECTS symbolize concepts which are non-local, and cut across many OBJECTS.
No way. It's not science fiction if it already exists!!!! The real science fiction is tapping right into the brain. None of the associated problems with "talkies", such as the "bag" problem (get 100 people in cubicles all talking?) and sore throats.
Talking is fine in a very limited setting (a cell phone number-dialing interface, for example). Otherwise, it's too low bandwidth, lacks any formal notion of demarcation ("oops, made a mistake, please delete back until the last time I said 'foo'", versus just backspacing on your keyboard), it probably lacks feedback as to what you've input so far (unlike a characater-oriented interface), and so on.
But wait, if a boycott won't help due to insufficient numbers (always another shopper to fill your slot), then won't your strategy fail for the same reason (your fluctuations get lost in the noise)? Granted, though, it's more fun to be devious than obnoxious!
Isn't that why SDRAM is so much nicer than DRAM? It concentrates all of the timing issues at the interface to the chip, rather than (for DRAMs) having timing issues leak throughout the system, which causes every part of the system to insert the necessary worst case slop, which adds up after for or five of these are chained together...
Typical applications that you and I use every day (Xwindows, Xemacs, Scheme, you know) don't care about memory bandwidth. Because interleaving, after all, improves bandwidth: where once you could get 1 byte per transfer over the bus (in your example), now you get four bytes --- a stunning four-fold improvement in bandwidth!! In fact, it is widely acknoledged that the bandwidth "problem" is really an issue of economics, not technology. Lay some more fiber, interleave some more, get more bandwidth.
No, most applications care about LATENCY. And this is a technological problem, not economical. This is because they are accessing memory in a somewhat random fashion: A[0], A[500], A[25],..., A[1]. Notice that we use A[0] and A[1], but there's a long interval in-between. Hence, this example is bounded by memory latency, not memory bandwidth.
Way back when, Apple introduced two essentially equivalent computers: the Centris 650 and the Quadra Quadra 650. Both 25MHz 68040 processors, etc, but the Quadra had 2-way interleaving. Twice as much bandwidth, DUDE! It performed about 2-4% faster.
It seems like you're making a false distinction between several types of competition. One is based on technical merits, another on marketing merits, and nother based on intertia, and then one based on, for lack of a better term, Spy-versus-Spy Fu.
Can you really just pick some subset of these out and call them "good competition", and pick out some other subset and call them bad?
I am reminded of my old MUD days, or even now what I've heard about Everquest or Ultima Online. You could imagine that your character is good simply because of its skill as an entity (strength, kicking ability, etc) and your skills as a meta-entity (kick first, then swing, then charge, etc). But, in the absence of artificial strictures, it doesn't work that way. You can trade items on ebay, you can team up with people in the same room (that is, in the real world) against your enemies (who don't have the advantage of being in the same real room), and so on.
Why should we call "sick your lawyers" move unfair? Isn't it a sign of overall FU in the game of competition?
The nature of competition continues to evolve, as we learn more about competition, as technology evolves (and creates new FU moves). To hearken back to the "good old days" of capitalism (hey, he kicked dirt in my eyes, cheater!) seems silly.
This whole thing started because you said "get a grip on reality", because someone was an eco-freak, and you disagreed. This sounds like a difference of OPINION and interpretation (global warming, positive feedback, etc), not a disagreement about basic axioms of the universe.
And therefore, my comment that your "get a grip on reality" was misplaced. You two were NOT disagreeing on reality; you were disagreeing on something which is not an axiom.
But relatively few things are axioms.
My frustration lies in that absolutist arguments always seem to degenerate to "get a grip, get a job, live in the real world for a while."
Hehe, maybe I should get back to work, or maybe go to bed, yeah!
actually, the more I thought about it, the more I got to thinking that you are right. Cause it's the truth, MAN! I mean, you couldn't possibly be wrong, right?
I might be wrong on this, but methinks Gnome does not depend directly on X, rather it depends on GDK. You can then port GDK to any back-end (such as Xlib) you want.
Thanks for the info. I personally think that's a silly move on Be's part. (and I also think their claiming "that's not what we're geared towards" is just interference.) Does Be have any notion of security? E.g. how would you prevent mobile agents from executing (as root) on your machine?
gotcha. That sounds like a fairly straightforward change to gimp. As far as having lots of windows open, at least for gnome, you can configure the MDI (multiple document interface) behavior: each-in-its-own-window, modal-with-tabs, or modal-without-tabs. Of course, you don't just want to apply it with an iron fist. You really want grouping: all these windows should be modal-with-tabs, but then using each-in-its-own-window for groups. It'd be cool if you could drag a -its-own-window to a tabbed window and have it swallowed up. Dunno if gnome does that.
But does Be support multiple users, in the sense of multiple UIDs? Sure, it might be the case that only one person is sitting in front of a workstation at a time, but what about sharing a computer with someone (roommate, SO, brother, cat, whatever). I don't necessarily want them mucking with my files. Does Be support that? thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be possible, then, to burn your own CD with the modifications to XF86Config?
DRAW!
Yes, re-read my post. I said it doesn't make sense to label a graphics format "textual" versus "binary", cause that's just a difference of which basis you use: is it base 256, or base 2? It doesn't matter, right? It's only a difference of a fixed constant factor of space.
The post I was originally responding to, in part, made the claim that SVG was silly because it used a "textual" representation. But, by the above argument, labeling something as textual doesn't really help matters. A vector graphics format can, in certain cases, represent considerably more information than even a highly JPEG-compressed bitmapped image. Consider the example of a black background with a white diagonal line going through it. That's two operations for a vector format.
But, in other cases, bitmapped representations are better: imagine a vector representation of an Monet painting. This probably isn't the right domain for a vector representation, and the vector representation will probably be huge compared to a JPEG-compressed bitmapped representation (and maybe even an uncompressed bitmapped representation.
Your argument is awesome. But, if what you say is true (and I think it is: one platform makes for stability through uniformity), then why "cripple" the computer? Why not just produce a full-fledged WinNT box (perhaps with an optional "easy cheesy" interface ala the MacOS's "easy finder" a few years back -- can't remember the name of it), but which box has the UNIFORMITY property?
Why dumb it down by default? I totally agree that uniformity is neato (for certain folks), but why not allow people to buy it as their main machine, as well?
Unless I am missing something, and this is the plan! Does anyone have a list of disabled features?
You can't be seriously comparing bitmapped to vector graphics? A "textual" representation of a bitmap just makes no sense. A bitmap is just that: a map of bits (the 19th entry is a 1), in the same sense that this post is a map of ASCII characters (the 19th entry is an "s"). Observe that ASCII encodings are going to be shorter than bitwise encodings, but only by some fixed constant factor (log256/log2). Also observe that both a raw bitmap and this post are compressible (they probably contain contain lots lots of redundancies :P).
Now, a vector representation of graphics is an entirely different beast. Instead of using 0s and 1s or As and Bs, you use high-level parameterized operations, like DRAWLINE(3x5,5x9). It would be akin to me encoding this document with things like: STANDARDREPLY(sillypost,verbose=9).
In other words, by using high-level primitives, rather than raw data, the size of a vector representation is simply not comparable to a raw representation. It is algorithmic encoding, using domain-specific knowledge (that you are drawing vectors).
Unstructured control flow is evil. It makes data- and control-flow analysis algorithms difficult or provably impossible.
Moderators!!! I believe this was intended as a joke
Hola, if you read the FAQ it specifically says that Linux users on PCs should enter "Windows". I suppose we can infer that Linux users on Macs should enter "Macintosh"? :)
In response to the other's complaint of no "$0" option: seems like $10 a year for internet access is pretty good! 'Specially if their claims of "helping the world" (???) are valid.
Are you familiar with aspect-oriented programming?
http://www.parc.xerox.com/csl/projects/aop/
They claim that, whereas OBJECTS symbolize encapsulation and "locality" of ideas, ASPECTS symbolize concepts which are non-local, and cut across many OBJECTS.
nick
No way. It's not science fiction if it already exists!!!! The real science fiction is tapping right into the brain. None of the associated problems with "talkies", such as the "bag" problem (get 100 people in cubicles all talking?) and sore throats.
Talking is fine in a very limited setting (a cell phone number-dialing interface, for example). Otherwise, it's too low bandwidth, lacks any formal notion of demarcation ("oops, made a mistake, please delete back until the last time I said 'foo'", versus just backspacing on your keyboard), it probably lacks feedback as to what you've input so far (unlike a characater-oriented interface), and so on.
But wait, if a boycott won't help due to insufficient numbers (always another shopper to fill your slot), then won't your strategy fail for the same reason (your fluctuations get lost in the noise)? Granted, though, it's more fun to be devious than obnoxious!
Now THAT'S a troll, everybody! :)
Isn't that why SDRAM is so much nicer than DRAM? It concentrates all of the timing issues at the interface to the chip, rather than (for DRAMs) having timing issues leak throughout the system, which causes every part of the system to insert the necessary worst case slop, which adds up after for or five of these are chained together...
Typical applications that you and I use every day (Xwindows, Xemacs, Scheme, you know) don't care about memory bandwidth. Because interleaving, after all, improves bandwidth: where once you could get 1 byte per transfer over the bus (in your example), now you get four bytes --- a stunning four-fold improvement in bandwidth!! In fact, it is widely acknoledged that the bandwidth "problem" is really an issue of economics, not technology. Lay some more fiber, interleave some more, get more bandwidth.
..., A[1]. Notice that we use A[0] and A[1], but there's a long interval in-between. Hence, this example is bounded by memory latency, not memory bandwidth.
No, most applications care about LATENCY. And this is a technological problem, not economical. This is because they are accessing memory in a somewhat random fashion: A[0], A[500], A[25],
Way back when, Apple introduced two essentially equivalent computers: the Centris 650 and the Quadra Quadra 650. Both 25MHz 68040 processors, etc, but the Quadra had 2-way interleaving. Twice as much bandwidth, DUDE! It performed about 2-4% faster.
Naw, the cost of uploading porn is amortized over more than enough downloads to make upstream bandwidth inconsequential!
It seems like you're making a false distinction between several types of competition. One is based on technical merits, another on marketing merits, and nother based on intertia, and then one based on, for lack of a better term, Spy-versus-Spy Fu.
Can you really just pick some subset of these out and call them "good competition", and pick out some other subset and call them bad?
I am reminded of my old MUD days, or even now what I've heard about Everquest or Ultima Online. You could imagine that your character is good simply because of its skill as an entity (strength, kicking ability, etc) and your skills as a meta-entity (kick first, then swing, then charge, etc). But, in the absence of artificial strictures, it doesn't work that way. You can trade items on ebay, you can team up with people in the same room (that is, in the real world) against your enemies (who don't have the advantage of being in the same real room), and so on.
Why should we call "sick your lawyers" move unfair? Isn't it a sign of overall FU in the game of competition?
The nature of competition continues to evolve, as we learn more about competition, as technology evolves (and creates new FU moves). To hearken back to the "good old days" of capitalism (hey, he kicked dirt in my eyes, cheater!) seems silly.
nick
This whole thing started because you said "get a grip on reality", because someone was an eco-freak, and you disagreed. This sounds like a difference of OPINION and interpretation (global warming, positive feedback, etc), not a disagreement about basic axioms of the universe.
And therefore, my comment that your "get a grip on reality" was misplaced. You two were NOT disagreeing on reality; you were disagreeing on something which is not an axiom.
But relatively few things are axioms.
My frustration lies in that absolutist arguments always seem to degenerate to "get a grip, get a job, live in the real world for a while."
Hehe, maybe I should get back to work, or maybe go to bed, yeah!
actually, the more I thought about it, the more I got to thinking that you are right. Cause it's the truth, MAN! I mean, you couldn't possibly be wrong, right?
You're right. Both you and I are right.
I'm always amazed by such responses: get a grip on reality. I mean, who's reality do you want me to grip? There's quite a few of them.
I might be wrong on this, but methinks Gnome does not depend directly on X, rather it depends on GDK. You can then port GDK to any back-end (such as Xlib) you want.
:)
Thanks for the info. I personally think that's a silly move on Be's part. (and I also think their claiming "that's not what we're geared towards" is just interference.) Does Be have any notion of security? E.g. how would you prevent mobile agents from executing (as root) on your machine?
gotcha. That sounds like a fairly straightforward change to gimp. As far as having lots of windows open, at least for gnome, you can configure the MDI (multiple document interface) behavior: each-in-its-own-window, modal-with-tabs, or modal-without-tabs. Of course, you don't just want to apply it with an iron fist. You really want grouping: all these windows should be modal-with-tabs, but then using each-in-its-own-window for groups. It'd be cool if you could drag a -its-own-window to a tabbed window and have it swallowed up. Dunno if gnome does that.
But does Be support multiple users, in the sense of multiple UIDs? Sure, it might be the case that only one person is sitting in front of a workstation at a time, but what about sharing a computer with someone (roommate, SO, brother, cat, whatever). I don't necessarily want them mucking with my files. Does Be support that? thanks.