But nVidia is in bed with Microsoft, and in the mean time Microsoft does something nVidia obviously doesn't want (and are trying to stop from getting into OpenGL 2.0). This doesn't make sense.
Microsoft has been proven time and time again to be above the law. What makes you think the antitrust stuff won't just blow over with a little pushing from the Microsoft White House?
And guess what? Forcing all the high-end CAD people to use Windows means more money for Microsoft! What do they care if it's nearly impossible to use, as long as Bill's wallet gets fatter?
As a matter of fact it would simplify NVIDIA's and ATI's life if they didn't have to support Linux.
They don't have to now, either. Yet they do. Whatever their reason, I doubt they need Microsoft to help them get rid of us; they can do it on their own quite easily. More likely they plan to make OpenGL proprietary so that Microsoft and friends can force DRM onto Free Software operating systems.
Re:Permanently and fully exposed windows are bad!
on
A Linux User Goes Back
·
· Score: 1
Then it is obviously necessary to be able to turn off such a feature, if you have a slower machine.
Also, some of those windows constantly update some parts whether they're exposed or not.
Well, since MacOS X doesn't crash "more oftehn than Windows 95 on a machine with apple juice all over the motherboard", that point of your argument is totally irrelevant. I have had my iBook for 13 months and the PowerMac for 10. They are on 24/7, rebooted only for software updates that require reboot. They have crashed exactly zero times.
I've had my iBook for far less than that, and OS X crashed horribly all the damn time. I wasn't exactly impressed by Classic, either. MOL does a far better job. Perhaps if I upgraded to 10.1 I wouldn't have this problem, but I refuse to pay Apple for bug fixes, just like how I refuse to pay Microsoft for bug fixes.
What I described is not quite double-buffering. I thought of double-buffering too, after I wrote the post, and I feel that double-buffering should be optional (via a server extension, perhaps), and enabled for a given window only when its client turns it on.
The point with giving each window its own private offscreen buffer was that you don't have to send it expose events when another window over it moves or disappears, since the X server already knows what to draw in the newly exposed pixels, because it has a complete offscreen buffer for each window. When it's time to send a frame to the video hardware, the X server simply takes the contents of all of the offscreen buffers and renders their contents in windows on the screen. In effect, this is double-buffering, only it is the X server that decides when to swap buffers. (Note that, in this scenario, it has to be a copy, rather than a swap.)
Also, because the X server has a complete, RGBA buffer of the contents of each window, it can handle transparency effects on the server side, with only minimal changes to clients (possibly just patching a toolkit like GTK).
If I get mail attributed to them, that I find offensive,...
...I collect them until I have enough to build a huge bonfire with, hang an effigy of the Pope (or some other highly contemptible political figure) on a wooden pole, and then set the pile ablaze.
If missionaries show up on my doorstep and won't leave...
...I get out any readily available firearms and tell them to get off my property before I force them off. Or call the police if that's a non-option.
but when push comes to shove he's a viscious as they come.
Correction. Christian fundamentalists are as vicious as they come. Remember that the Bible was not written by God.
If someone keeps you from being able to hear opposing views, he is doing the equivalent, but hiding the fact so that you can't (and aren't inspired to) retaliate.
And if you realize what he's doing and attempt to retaliate, he has you executed for national security reasons, because, of course, only filthy, evil terrorists like yourself could possibly want access to that kind of material.
Correction. Proof reinforces faith. Generally, when one suddenly sees God put a hole in the clouds and speak to one in a booming voice, one worships God until the end of one's days, even if one is a (former) atheist.
and without faith I am nothing.
So I can just believe that George W Bush doesn't exist, and he'll go away? Cool!
Unfortunately according to law Jesus and the Virgin Mary are both dead, and therefore can not actually be slandered.
Actually, Jesus is missing and presumed dead.
Re:No, this is not about W3C staff wanting RAND sp
on
W3C Ponders RAND Again
·
· Score: 1
(1) should the work be dropped altogether, or (2) is there a central core that can be implemented freely, avoiding the patent? If so, should the non-free part still be standardised, and under what terms?
This is a little hard to answer, so I'll rephrase it:
If there is a central core that can be implemented freely, avoiding the patent, should the non-free part be standardized, and under what terms?
Otherwise, should the work be dropped altogether?
The answers, of course, are no and yes, respectively.
In my (albeit limited) experience with Debian, it is only marginally faster, because it automates the downlaod of binaries. While apt-get is wonderful for upgrading an entire system to say... Gnome 2.0 with relatively few headaches, it looses that edge when you're only upgrading a few carefully selected pacakges for security reasons.
And that is where your limited experience becomes a problem. If you want to only upgrade a few carefully selected packages for security reasons, you should use dselect or deity.
Remember what tactics they pulled during the browser war, blatantly breaching the settlement agreement they had reached with the DoJ just a couple of years before.
And guess what? They got a slap on the wrist for it!
I sincerely doubt that they care whether or not it's legal for them to do whatever they want. They didn't care before; why should they start caring now?
MS has historically been the victim rather than the instigator of legal action with respect to stupid patents.
They haven't been as badly threatened as they are now, either. Ordinarily they wouldn't give a damn, but I suspect that they will use any and every measure they possibly can to ensure their survival, or at least take their competitors with them. Of course, that includes exercising their patents. This also concerns me with IP they have on.NET and what they might do to Mono if they get desperate.
x86 hardware is cool because it's extremely mature (and therefore works correctly), and because it's neck and neck with the present PowerPC competition in terms of speed. Pretty good combination, I think.
As for your remark about overclocked Athlons being hot, well, that's what you get for buying AMD trash.
Microsoft doesn't want anyone to switch to their product, because everyone uses it already. Their Web site is there to convince people to upgrade their already-purchased Microsoft products, and buy more Microsoft products.
Slashdot Mirror
But nVidia is in bed with Microsoft, and in the mean time Microsoft does something nVidia obviously doesn't want (and are trying to stop from getting into OpenGL 2.0). This doesn't make sense.
Microsoft has been proven time and time again to be above the law. What makes you think the antitrust stuff won't just blow over with a little pushing from the Microsoft White House?
To do that, there has to be a clause in the license stating that the licensor can revoke it.
Knowing Microsoft, they probably bought a patent on buffer flipping. I think you'll have a hell of a time getting around their IP.
And guess what? Forcing all the high-end CAD people to use Windows means more money for Microsoft! What do they care if it's nearly impossible to use, as long as Bill's wallet gets fatter?
Also, some of those windows constantly update some parts whether they're exposed or not.
Following up on that, I just noticed that XFree86 4.x (and possibly older versions) already has a double-buffer extension.
The point with giving each window its own private offscreen buffer was that you don't have to send it expose events when another window over it moves or disappears, since the X server already knows what to draw in the newly exposed pixels, because it has a complete offscreen buffer for each window. When it's time to send a frame to the video hardware, the X server simply takes the contents of all of the offscreen buffers and renders their contents in windows on the screen. In effect, this is double-buffering, only it is the X server that decides when to swap buffers. (Note that, in this scenario, it has to be a copy, rather than a swap.)
Also, because the X server has a complete, RGBA buffer of the contents of each window, it can handle transparency effects on the server side, with only minimal changes to clients (possibly just patching a toolkit like GTK).
Of course contraception isn't sinful. If God didn't intend for sex to be used for recreation, He wouldn't have made it so much fun!
- If there is a central core that can be implemented freely, avoiding the patent, should the non-free part be standardized, and under what terms?
- Otherwise, should the work be dropped altogether?
The answers, of course, are no and yes, respectively.If you voted for him, this is what you get for it. Remember, the Clinton administration was coming down hard on MS.
And guess what? They got a slap on the wrist for it!
I sincerely doubt that they care whether or not it's legal for them to do whatever they want. They didn't care before; why should they start caring now?
As for your remark about overclocked Athlons being hot, well, that's what you get for buying AMD trash.
Microsoft doesn't want anyone to switch to their product, because everyone uses it already. Their Web site is there to convince people to upgrade their already-purchased Microsoft products, and buy more Microsoft products.