Wow, those are a lot of complicated algorithms. They weren't kidding when they said that MULTICS was huge and overly complicated...
Some of these make more sense coming from a "batch-job scheduling" perspective. Of course, we still use credit-based scheduling algorithms today (because they rule!) and I can't picture using six queues(!).
Also, about the name: If MULTICS is an OS designed by a lot of people, then Unix would be an OS designed by one person...:)
Wow, you got the darn thing to work? It apparently runs on some mythical version of Solaris 2.5.1, and it's always a pain for me to find a machine that will run it at all... (I'm trying it on a box running Solaris 2.6, which is what they're all upgraded to on campus now. The script for IE5 thinks its okay...)
In case anyone was wondering what "UNIX" is according to Microsoft, here it is:
case $OSname in
SunOS) case $OSrev in 5.[567]*) OSdir=sunos5;; 5.[89]*) echo "$OSname $OSrev is not currently supported." echo "Please visit $IEUrl for a list of supported platforms.\n" OSdir=sunos5;; esac;; HP-UX) case $OSrev in *.10.[23]*|*.11.*) OSdir=ux10;; esac esac
I got past the "display server cache" on IE4, but it isn't doing much else at the moment...
They both It don't work over a regular X connection unless I use the undocumented '-remote' switch, and make sure the mouse isn't on the window to start with. One time it locked up my mouse cursor, and I had to ssh in *again* and kill it off. I got it to show the licensing agreement, but it will consistently "Abort" under IE5 or sleep under IE4. Oh, and it needs 17MB of RAM to do nothing, so far.
Here are the ones I tried:
Internet Explorer 4.71.1410.4 ; Copyright (c) 1995-98 Microsoft Corp.
Internet Explorer 5.00.2013.1312 ; Copyright (c) 1995-98 Microsoft Corp.
So until IE 5.0 for Unix actually *works* on a Solaris box I can use, I'm not too impressed with it. I hope you'll understand why--it's as if Microsoft released IE5 and it worked on Windows '95, but not on '98, but that's okay, because who uses Windows '98, right?:)
Yeah, I'm a rabid Linux user. I hate Microsoft, because they haven't done anything worthwhile since releasing DOS 5.0. But, that having been said...
I would happily use any Microsoft software that was ported *decently* to Linux. (you know what I mean if you've used Microsoft's "Internet Explorer for Unix". Ugh.)
Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the Wine project will beat them to it. I ran Excel '97 a while back on Wine, and that stupid paperclip came up just fine. Not much else worked, though. I'm sure it's better now. Of course, there's always VMWare, but that's not even close to native! (need a copy of Windows, too much RAM, etc., etc...)
...and if Microsoft can't play fair, let 'em burn. They've been asking for it for years. I'll happily give them another chance, I just don't think they can change their ways by now. But we'll see what the trial brings. Windows 2000 will probably make them more arrogant than ever, now that they've invented a few more features from Unix.;) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
"The Whitehouse" actually looks like a very responsible porn site, if such an animal exists.
At least, it looks like that under w3m, which is an excellent (text) browser...
If you're going to register all the TLDs you can with the same name attached, why stop there? Register all the obvious mis-spellings and other things people might try too. (because for the major sites, someone always registers these, and they put up really annoying sites!)
I know. It was around before we knew what squatting was. I quote myself:
Okay, so openssh.org got taken. This happened to altavista, and countless other "big names" on the web. Some guy registers "your" name before you do, so you settle for another one.
Did I say squatting? I don't think so. Without following your link, I believe my description that someone took "their" name, i.e. the name that they wanted to use and thought was rightfully theirs because they were so attached to it, was correct. This doesn't take the intent of the original domain registrant into consideration.
And "squatting" is when you're using land that rightfully belongs to someone else. I don't know if this is that good an analogy in the first place, because domain names don't "belong" to anyone until they get registered. You can't squat on land that no one owns, and you definitely can't squat on land that you yourself own!
The only thing that's evil is when someone wastes a whole domain for something stupid, when it could go to something useful. That might be the case here, but let's wait and see first.
The OpenBSD community is known for their flamewars and bad feelings on both sides of the fence: that's how it was founded. This might be another one of those stupid pissing contests. And if someone flames me for saying so, I'll consider it further proof.:) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yeah, and through "Network Solutions", too. Man, they're pure evil. Of course, the other "real" site is entertaining too.
Note that, to my knowledge, OpenSSH and OpenBSD both have nothing to do with "The Open Group", and that group has nothing to do with actually being open... Go figure.
[whois.corenic.net] Registrant Todd T. Fries (template COCO-21730) OpenBSD, the REAL open group 1523 North Pierson Apt F W. Peoria, IL 61604 USA
To optimize query speed and answer correctness see the --help option. Depending on your whois client use whois -h whois.corenic.net HELP or whois HELP@whois.corenic.net
Okay, so openssh.org got taken. This happened to altavista, and countless other "big names" on the web. Some guy registers "your" name before you do, so you settle for another one.
Openssh.org looks like a harmless list of links. Of course, the intent of Mr. Alex de Joode couldn't have been that benificent since he already has freessh.org, which is no more than a list of bookmarks, as far as I can tell.
But still, ho hum. No big news here, move along. It isn't that original a name, guys. More importantly, I certainly don't want the big companies taking away our domain names because it's their trademark/copyright/whatever. A ruling in this situation would probably set a precedent that we don't want. The only option I can think of is to try to negotiate with the parties involved, which apparently hasn't worked. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
That means you're 4/5 pure, 1/5 corrupt. As a long-time slashdotter, I should be *really* corrupt, not just halfway there.:)
No, Jon Katz is a moron. Although his last rant was actually intelligible, even if he was preaching to the choir... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
> Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
Okay, it was a pretty cool test.
> You answered "yes" to 105 of 200 questions, making you 47.5% slashdot pure > (52.5% slashdot corrupt).
Woah, what do you have to do to get a good score on this thing?!?! I should have lied more...
> According to the scoring guide, your slashdot experience level is: JonKatz Wannabe
Okay. Forget this test. I can't *imagine* a worse insult to a slashdot poster.:)
(Oh, and I used "No Score +1 Bonus" and "Preview" to post this. "Gee, I bet I'll get moderated down for this...";) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Beer and the BA-2 rocket are incompatible, due to their inability to perform "heavy lifting", or operate heavy machinery with too much beer. Sorry guys, no beer in space, you'll have to brew it on the Moon after you terraform it first!
In other news, The A-Team is suing, for dilution of their "B.A." trademark. Their spokesman was saying, "I pity the fool who think he can lift more than Mr. T!" --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It was, actually, until it got renamed the "Lesser General Public License", and RMS started telling people not to use it over the GPL if possible.
Oh well, I like the LGPL, it's a good balance between the philosophies. TrollTech would have saved a lot of our time, anxiety, and developer cycles if they had used the LGPL over the QPL... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
In related news, Junkbuster has announced ports of their popular ad-blocking software to several smart cell-phone platforms... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Don't be so hard on Tim, guys, he's just trying to help out the community and hammer out some ground rules.
I see nothing wrong with patenting innovative ideas, although I still wouldn't put Amazon's "1-click-shopping" patent in this realm. I don't like the shopping cart metaphor, and I also don't like storing people's credit card numbers on the server, so I wouldn't consider it "innovation" in the first place.:)
Patents are a tool. Like guns and computers, they aren't evil for merely existing. They can be used and abused like anything else. I think the FSF should patent any innovations they come up with, and allow anyone writing "free" software to use those patents, and offer to license them to corporations for some reasonable price, or use them as leverage, to cross-license some proprietary features into free software. (that may be the only way The GIMP ever gets the features it needs, for instance...)
But I'd prefer it if the patents are of the innovative variety and not of the "rename an old concept now that it's new on the web" variety. (Drat, I should have patented "e-business" before anyone ever thought of it!) --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I'm actually learning Scheme in Theory of Programming Languages. It's a pretty nifty course...
How do effect layers work? Is that just like an extra layer that specifies an effect?
Yes, The GIMP always allows however many undos/redos, I love that feature.
And image "slicing" annoys the hell out of me, if you mean what I think you do...
Hackers often add in features that only hackers could love. Maybe that's why people are programming with GTK... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Shouldn't that be "Anyone who says that Photoshop is more powerful than The GIMP doesn't know Scheme"?:)
But seriously, it sounds like The GIMP isn't there yet in terms of CMYK production / printing, and that's a shame. But I don't think scripting is its weakness...
You're right, though, I haven't looked at Photoshop 5.5. Photoshop 5.0, to my untrained eye, looked like Photoshop 3.0 with a lot of extra useless filters. (read: filters that I could have simulated in Photoshop 3.0 with just a little bit more work, or could have created in Photoshop 3.0 IF it had had a decent scripting language then...)
I'm also very happy with how well The GIMP and ImageMagick save files. PhotoShop, in my experience, creates bloated images that don't look as good, while both The GIMP and ImageMagick create slender, optimized PNGs and JPEGs.
Also, I like being able to save a big image as ".xcf.bz2", and have The GIMP do it automatically for me, whereas PhotoShop usually capitalizes my extensions, and *still* doesn't know which format to use unless I tell it explicitly...
But, different strokes for different folks... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Hmm. That sounds like a lot of work, especially for a home network.
I guess the initial goal would be to design the network such that the other machines get updated from a central one, (or they all mirror each other in some way) or put all the important stuff on the networked drives.
I'm sure there are software packages that could help you out here. I'd probably do something funky with locate and cron, but maybe something like AutoRPM would work better. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
My mom is a screenprinter, and she uses Pantone colors in Photoshop and CorelDraw. I could never be as picky as she is about shades of color, so I guess that level of detail is needed in the business.
However, she also likes The GIMP 'cause it can make nifty rotating planets. I guess it just brings out the inner web designer in all of us.
Give us a nice printer, and we computer geeks can't tell the difference.:)
And isn't it CMYK? --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I haven't messed with the APIs involved, especially not the Windows one. I know DirectX exists just to bypass it, though, which also doesn't sound like that sound an idea...
When X differentiates between a 'local' user (i.e. on console) and a 'remote' one better, I'm sure performance will go up. And the GGI(/KGI) people have been working on getting a fast, generic graphics interface with as little kernel code as possible, too. Hopefully that'll get folded into the framebuffer code, to the point where it supports my cheap graphic cards.:)
I also haven't used BeOS much, but from the little I know, it sounds like their advantage was redesigning from the ground up, which is something any new OS can usually afford to do. Hopefully it won't go the way of the Amiga too soon, and I'll definitely install it once it's 'free', and I have some extra space. (although I'd rather do it with a multi-processor system, to really test things out...)
What you're describing sounds kind of like a micro-kernel approach to graphics. It shouldn't be too hard to implement something like that, maybe with MkLinux. Interesting... --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yep. Once either X or the applications support pretty, anti-aliased fonts this won't be a problem. Until then, though, they'll just look ugly.
I don't have a problem with most fonts I see, but some pages look pretty bad in Netscape (I have it set to only use my fonts now) and the fonts in The GIMP look *way* better than the rest of X (they're well-rendered, and anti-aliased). The word processors in X look pretty painful, but usually I just use them to add formatting, so it's no big deal. --- pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but when it's done, plex86 will run ".com" files, as well as whatever ".ORG" assembler you used originally.
Now I'm just waiting for the ".exe" TLD...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Heh heh heh. That must be how slashdot felt when it first got popular...
I'm always amazed at the logs I get just when I post a link on slashdot. We're a bunch of trained monkeys!
Oh well, your site goes down, but you get more corrupt on the Slashdot Purity Test. It all works out in the end...
later,
Peter
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Wow, those are a lot of complicated algorithms. They weren't kidding when they said that MULTICS was huge and overly complicated...
Some of these make more sense coming from a "batch-job scheduling" perspective. Of course, we still use credit-based scheduling algorithms today (because they rule!) and I can't picture using six queues(!).
Also, about the name: If MULTICS is an OS designed by a lot of people, then Unix would be an OS designed by one person...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Wow, you got the darn thing to work? It apparently runs on some mythical
version of Solaris 2.5.1, and it's always a pain for me to find a machine
that will run it at all... (I'm trying it on a box running Solaris 2.6,
which is what they're all upgraded to on campus now. The script for IE5
thinks its okay...)
In case anyone was wondering what "UNIX" is according to Microsoft, here
it is:
case $OSname in
SunOS) case $OSrev in
5.[567]*)
OSdir=sunos5
5.[89]*)
echo "$OSname $OSrev is not currently supported."
echo "Please visit $IEUrl for a list of supported platforms.\n"
OSdir=sunos5
esac;;
HP-UX) case $OSrev in
*.10.[23]*|*.11.*)
OSdir=ux10
esac
esac
I got past the "display server cache" on IE4, but it isn't doing much
else at the moment...
They both It don't work over a regular X connection unless I use the
undocumented '-remote' switch, and make sure the mouse isn't on the
window to start with. One time it locked up my mouse cursor, and I
had to ssh in *again* and kill it off. I got it to show the licensing
agreement, but it will consistently "Abort" under IE5 or sleep under IE4.
Oh, and it needs 17MB of RAM to do nothing, so far.
Here are the ones I tried:
Internet Explorer 4.71.1410.4 ; Copyright (c) 1995-98 Microsoft Corp.
Internet Explorer 5.00.2013.1312 ; Copyright (c) 1995-98 Microsoft Corp.
So until IE 5.0 for Unix actually *works* on a Solaris box I can use, I'm
not too impressed with it. I hope you'll understand why--it's as if
Microsoft released IE5 and it worked on Windows '95, but not on '98,
but that's okay, because who uses Windows '98, right?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yeah, I'm a rabid Linux user. I hate Microsoft, because they haven't done anything worthwhile since releasing DOS 5.0. But, that having been said...
;)
I would happily use any Microsoft software that was ported *decently* to Linux. (you know what I mean if you've used Microsoft's "Internet Explorer for Unix". Ugh.)
Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the Wine project will beat them to it. I ran Excel '97 a while back on Wine, and that stupid paperclip came up just fine. Not much else worked, though. I'm sure it's better now. Of course, there's always VMWare, but that's not even close to native! (need a copy of Windows, too much RAM, etc., etc...)
...and if Microsoft can't play fair, let 'em burn. They've been asking for it for years. I'll happily give them another chance, I just don't think they can change their ways by now. But we'll see what the trial brings. Windows 2000 will probably make them more arrogant than ever, now that they've invented a few more features from Unix.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
"The Whitehouse" actually looks like a very responsible porn site, if such an animal exists.
At least, it looks like that under w3m, which is an excellent (text) browser...
If you're going to register all the TLDs you can with the same name attached, why stop there? Register all the obvious mis-spellings and other things people might try too. (because for the major sites, someone always registers these, and they put up really annoying sites!)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Actually, slashdot.[cc|com|net|org] are taken. Half of them even point to slashdot!
.edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .nu, and .to are still available. Get them while you still can! ;)
Fortunately,
barrapunto.org is "Open Resources", and BarraPunto.com is the Spanish slashdot knockoff...
dotslash.com is coming soon, and slapdash.org is still my favorite...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I know. It was around before we knew what squatting was. I quote myself:
:)
Okay, so openssh.org got taken. This happened to altavista, and countless other "big names" on the web. Some guy registers "your" name before you do, so you settle for another one.
Did I say squatting? I don't think so. Without following your link, I believe my description that someone took "their" name, i.e. the name that they wanted to use and thought was rightfully theirs because they were so attached to it, was correct. This doesn't take the intent of the original domain registrant into consideration.
And "squatting" is when you're using land that rightfully belongs to someone else. I don't know if this is that good an analogy in the first place, because domain names don't "belong" to anyone until they get registered. You can't squat on land that no one owns, and you definitely can't squat on land that you yourself own!
The only thing that's evil is when someone wastes a whole domain for something stupid, when it could go to something useful. That might be the case here, but let's wait and see first.
The OpenBSD community is known for their flamewars and bad feelings on both sides of the fence: that's how it was founded. This might be another one of those stupid pissing contests. And if someone flames me for saying so, I'll consider it further proof.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yeah, and through "Network Solutions", too. Man, they're pure evil. Of course, the other "real" site is entertaining too.
Note that, to my knowledge, OpenSSH and OpenBSD both have nothing to do with "The Open Group", and that group has nothing to do with actually being open... Go figure.
[whois.corenic.net]
Registrant Todd T. Fries (template COCO-21730)
OpenBSD, the REAL open group
1523 North Pierson Apt F
W. Peoria, IL 61604 USA
Domain Name: openssh.com
Status: production
Admin Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Todd Fries (COCO-21731) todd@fries.net
+3096739259
CORE Registrar: CORE-80
Record created: 1999-10-25 08:44:41 MET by CORE-80
Domain servers in listed order:
zeus.theos.com 199.185.137.1
cvs.openbsd.org 199.185.137.3
ns0.fries.net 209.251.96.130
Database last updated on 2000-03-07 03:55:07 MET
To optimize query speed and answer correctness see the
--help option. Depending on your whois client use
whois -h whois.corenic.net HELP
or
whois HELP@whois.corenic.net
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Okay, so openssh.org got taken. This happened to altavista, and countless other "big names" on the web. Some guy registers "your" name before you do, so you settle for another one.
Openssh.org looks like a harmless list of links. Of course, the intent of Mr. Alex de Joode couldn't have been that benificent since he already has freessh.org, which is no more than a list of bookmarks, as far as I can tell.
But still, ho hum. No big news here, move along. It isn't that original a name, guys. More importantly, I certainly don't want the big companies taking away our domain names because it's their trademark/copyright/whatever. A ruling in this situation would probably set a precedent that we don't want. The only option I can think of is to try to negotiate with the parties involved, which apparently hasn't worked.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
That means you're 4/5 pure, 1/5 corrupt. As a long-time slashdotter, I should be *really* corrupt, not just halfway there. :)
No, Jon Katz is a moron. Although his last rant was actually intelligible, even if he was preaching to the choir...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
> Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
:)
;)
Okay, it was a pretty cool test.
> You answered "yes" to 105 of 200 questions, making you 47.5% slashdot pure
> (52.5% slashdot corrupt).
Woah, what do you have to do to get a good score on this thing?!?! I should have lied more...
> According to the scoring guide, your slashdot experience level is: JonKatz Wannabe
Okay. Forget this test. I can't *imagine* a worse insult to a slashdot poster.
(Oh, and I used "No Score +1 Bonus" and "Preview" to post this.
"Gee, I bet I'll get moderated down for this..."
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Why don't you use a real emulator, like MESS or Bochs that actually runs the x86 slow enough?
(MESS is made for playing old games, yeah!
(it's MAME for computer/console systems...))
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Beer and the BA-2 rocket are incompatible, due to their inability to perform "heavy lifting", or operate heavy machinery with too much beer. Sorry guys, no beer in space, you'll have to brew it on the Moon after you terraform it first!
In other news, The A-Team is suing, for dilution of their "B.A." trademark. Their spokesman was saying, "I pity the fool who think he can lift more than Mr. T!"
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It was, actually, until it got renamed the "Lesser General Public License", and RMS started telling people not to use it over the GPL if possible.
Oh well, I like the LGPL, it's a good balance between the philosophies. TrollTech would have saved a lot of our time, anxiety, and developer cycles if they had used the LGPL over the QPL...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I guess we can go ahead with that Quake 3 port now, eh?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
In related news, Junkbuster has announced ports of their popular ad-blocking software to several smart cell-phone platforms...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Don't be so hard on Tim, guys, he's just trying to help out the community and hammer out some ground rules.
:)
I see nothing wrong with patenting innovative ideas, although I still wouldn't put Amazon's "1-click-shopping" patent in this realm. I don't like the shopping cart metaphor, and I also don't like storing people's credit card numbers on the server, so I wouldn't consider it "innovation" in the first place.
Patents are a tool. Like guns and computers, they aren't evil for merely existing. They can be used and abused like anything else. I think the FSF should patent any innovations they come up with, and allow anyone writing "free" software to use those patents, and offer to license them to corporations for some reasonable price, or use them as leverage, to cross-license some proprietary features into free software. (that may be the only way The GIMP ever gets the features it needs, for instance...)
But I'd prefer it if the patents are of the innovative variety and not of the "rename an old concept now that it's new on the web" variety. (Drat, I should have patented "e-business" before anyone ever thought of it!)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I'm actually learning Scheme in Theory of Programming Languages. It's a pretty nifty course...
How do effect layers work? Is that just like an extra layer that specifies an effect?
Yes, The GIMP always allows however many undos/redos, I love that feature.
And image "slicing" annoys the hell out of me, if you mean what I think you do...
Hackers often add in features that only hackers could love. Maybe that's why people are programming with GTK...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Shouldn't that be "Anyone who says that Photoshop is more powerful than The GIMP doesn't know Scheme"? :)
But seriously, it sounds like The GIMP isn't there yet in terms of CMYK production / printing, and that's a shame. But I don't think scripting is its weakness...
You're right, though, I haven't looked at Photoshop 5.5. Photoshop 5.0, to my untrained eye, looked like Photoshop 3.0 with a lot of extra useless filters. (read: filters that I could have simulated in Photoshop 3.0 with just a little bit more work, or could have created in Photoshop 3.0 IF it had had a decent scripting language then...)
I'm also very happy with how well The GIMP and ImageMagick save files. PhotoShop, in my experience, creates bloated images that don't look as good, while both The GIMP and ImageMagick create slender, optimized PNGs and JPEGs.
Also, I like being able to save a big image as ".xcf.bz2", and have The GIMP do it automatically for me, whereas PhotoShop usually capitalizes my extensions, and *still* doesn't know which format to use unless I tell it explicitly...
But, different strokes for different folks...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Hmm. That sounds like a lot of work, especially for a home network.
I guess the initial goal would be to design the network such that the other machines get updated from a central one, (or they all mirror each other in some way) or put all the important stuff on the networked drives.
I'm sure there are software packages that could help you out here. I'd probably do something funky with locate and cron, but maybe something like AutoRPM would work better.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
"art, bart, cart, dart, eeeart... Sounds good to me!"
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Oh, gotcha. I wasn't thinking...
:)
My mom is a screenprinter, and she uses Pantone colors in Photoshop and CorelDraw. I could never be as picky as she is about shades of color, so I guess that level of detail is needed in the business.
However, she also likes The GIMP 'cause it can make nifty rotating planets. I guess it just brings out the inner web designer in all of us.
Give us a nice printer, and we computer geeks can't tell the difference.
And isn't it CMYK?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I haven't messed with the APIs involved, especially not the Windows one. I know DirectX exists just to bypass it, though, which also doesn't sound like that sound an idea...
:)
When X differentiates between a 'local' user (i.e. on console) and a 'remote' one better, I'm sure performance will go up. And the GGI(/KGI) people have been working on getting a fast, generic graphics interface with as little kernel code as possible, too. Hopefully that'll get folded into the framebuffer code, to the point where it supports my cheap graphic cards.
I also haven't used BeOS much, but from the little I know, it sounds like their advantage was redesigning from the ground up, which is something any new OS can usually afford to do. Hopefully it won't go the way of the Amiga too soon, and I'll definitely install it once it's 'free', and I have some extra space. (although I'd rather do it with a multi-processor system, to really test things out...)
What you're describing sounds kind of like a micro-kernel approach to graphics. It shouldn't be too hard to implement something like that, maybe with MkLinux. Interesting...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yep. Once either X or the applications support pretty, anti-aliased fonts this won't be a problem. Until then, though, they'll just look ugly.
I don't have a problem with most fonts I see, but some pages look pretty bad in Netscape (I have it set to only use my fonts now) and the fonts in The GIMP look *way* better than the rest of X (they're well-rendered, and anti-aliased). The word processors in X look pretty painful, but usually I just use them to add formatting, so it's no big deal.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.