there is no standard to deviate from. In a closed world where everything acts the same one program that looks and behaves differently becomes an obstacle to understanding (however small that obstacle is). Take a look at the new MS media player with it's horrible skins (poor design).
Its not. Its a pain in the ass I'm almost glad to hear it but it's sad that the two widget kits are so awkward.
I've used MFC & the Windows API and the best thing I found to do was to make ActiveX Controls for the logic and Visual Basic for the UI then you get the best of both worlds - and the worst of course.
The winner of course though is *nix 'cos you've got so many to choose from. Non-standard Windows controls make a program clunky no matter how uch better it make the programming. The days or Borlands OWL stuff and non-standard buttons (standard meaning native) just felt plain wrong.
I've tried wxWindows with Python and that was interesting.
What has anyone else tried for fun and seen some promise in?
Obviously the *nix world offers more potential for experimentation with it's abstraction of machine from display.
I'm hoping to start a project on Inferno with it's blend of TK and Limbo (a wierd pascal / c hybrid).
I'm also keep an eye on the Berlin Project with it's 3d co-ordinate system and transparent windows.
Anyone got any direct experience with those two? .oO0Oo.
hehe matey boy
you are a retard
we know the code is shit from no other reason than the author says it is in the article!!
plus we all use it and have seen it bend and twist
people with any knowledge already know that accessing a site with passwords over http is never going to be secure.
Remember the dark and distant days when your browser told you that the data you are sending can be read by anyone inbetween you and the server? You probably clicked on "don't show me this again"
it's not secure because it doesn't need to be it's just a hurdle to prevent casual spoofing of other accounts
yes, kind of
everything is controlled like this
the contents of a window can be read and written through file access
everything really is a file
and because of that consistent methodology you can do complicated things easily
control your devices with shell scripts / executables / python etc. etc. there's no new interface stuff to bother with.
add something new and EVERYONE already knows how to interface with it :
$ cat/device/status
Device is "on"
$ echo "off" >/dev/ctrl
$ cat/device/status
Device is "off"
but interestingly if i bind the device in to my namespace I can control it too even though it's not on my pc so I can easily write data to your serial port or read the position of your mouse
Slashdot Mirror
pod racer
.oO0Oo.
hmmmm
the arcade version is even worse
the only redeeming feature is that pod is a euphamism for testicle round these parts
was that the top down one where you rotated the screen and the ship stayed still so your bullets curved away from you as you auto-fired
.oO0Oo.
I'd forgotten about that one - i want it nowwwwww
actually no i thought
.oO0Oo.
what a shitty interface surely they can do better than this
http://www.sugarwalls.com - link
.oO0Oo.
1 month for $19.95
http://www.suzerandall.net - link
$29.95 For 30 Days Access
http://www.canon.co.uk/cgi-bin/parser.pl?page=prod ucts&product=34&prodtype=3&s ubprodtype=1 0 - link
.oO0Oo.
couldn't find a price for this but it's predecessor the XL1 is about $4000
Canon D30 - Approx. 3.11 million pixels (2160 x 1440)
r oducts&subprodtype=&product=478 - lin k
.oO0Oo.
http://www.canon.co.uk/cgi-bin/parser.pl?page=p
£1995.00 inc VAT
http://www.vrealities.com/cmpsr.html
.oO0Oo.
3D car racing
$5000
and yo betta get yoself a spell chekka
.oO0Oo.
yes, that's the dichotomy.
.oO0Oo.
there is no standard to deviate from. In a closed world where everything acts the same one program that looks and behaves differently becomes an obstacle to understanding (however small that obstacle is). Take a look at the new MS media player with it's horrible skins (poor design).
IHBT?
.oO0Oo.
No Linux programmer has even thought of creating a GUI network browser.
anyone that could write one can already visualise it without the need of the machine to help them.
I think Linux needs a breath of fresh air from the real world
it's a good job your opinions don't carry much weight then
Its not. Its a pain in the ass
.oO0Oo.
I'm almost glad to hear it but it's sad that the two widget kits are so awkward.
I've used MFC & the Windows API and the best thing I found to do was to make ActiveX Controls for the logic and Visual Basic for the UI then you get the best of both worlds - and the worst of course.
The winner of course though is *nix 'cos you've got so many to choose from. Non-standard Windows controls make a program clunky no matter how uch better it make the programming. The days or Borlands OWL stuff and non-standard buttons (standard meaning native) just felt plain wrong.
I've tried wxWindows with Python and that was interesting.
What has anyone else tried for fun and seen some promise in?
Obviously the *nix world offers more potential for experimentation with it's abstraction of machine from display.
I'm hoping to start a project on Inferno with it's blend of TK and Limbo (a wierd pascal / c hybrid).
I'm also keep an eye on the Berlin Project with it's 3d co-ordinate system and transparent windows.
Anyone got any direct experience with those two?
but it's horrible to use & it looks awful
.oO0Oo.
I'm a daily Gimp For Windows user and sometimes it's an irritating fight
gtk might be a great programmers Widget kit but It could really do with a usability overhaul
1. learn how to spell au contraire
.oO0Oo.
2. shut up
3. fuck off
they really make your forearms ache and clicking little links is a pain, you finger prevents you from seeing what you are clicking on
.oO0Oo.
i know cos I've got one - one of those pc's from airplane seats (it' a 486 but i run vnc on it and ue it just a an input device/display)
go read the faq dude
.oO0Oo.
hehe matey boy
.oO0Oo.
you are a retard
we know the code is shit from no other reason than the author says it is in the article!!
plus we all use it and have seen it bend and twist
people with any knowledge already know that accessing a site with passwords over http is never going to be secure.
Remember the dark and distant days when your browser told you that the data you are sending can be read by anyone inbetween you and the server? You probably clicked on "don't show me this again"
it's not secure because it doesn't need to be it's just a hurdle to prevent casual spoofing of other accounts
get a clue
maybe they been to themes.org
.oO0Oo.
it lets you know :)
.oO0Oo.
what use is information about aim & iqc ?
yes, kind of
/device/status
/dev/ctrl
/device/status
.oO0Oo.
everything is controlled like this
the contents of a window can be read and written through file access
everything really is a file
and because of that consistent methodology you can do complicated things easily
control your devices with shell scripts / executables / python etc. etc. there's no new interface stuff to bother with.
add something new and EVERYONE already knows how to interface with it :
$ cat
Device is "on"
$ echo "off" >
$ cat
Device is "off"
but interestingly if i bind the device in to my namespace I can control it too even though it's not on my pc so I can easily write data to your serial port or read the position of your mouse
if you liked unix you'll love plan9
then you understand
.oO0Oo.
if somebody hadn't invented the wheel no-one would have
.oO0Oo.
it's not supposed to replace your os, dork
.oO0Oo.
it's for embedded devices
the mythical network toaster & friends
plan9 has been doing that for 10 years
/drskwid/audio
.oO0Oo.
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9
all resources are distributed through a namespace
want to play audio on my machine :
cat pcmdata.dat |
is that cool enough?
you can't make an empty doc
.oO0Oo.
you make an ole file system
the ole format is documented or how else would plan9 mount an ole document
when outlook sends html it sends a plain version too
it does send annoyingly formatted html though
positive : too much grey & too Windowsss like
.oO0Oo.
paRat : not enough contrast