Obj-C is often considered what C++ would have been, if C++ were done right.
Objective C may be better than C++ for GUI programming, but that really doesn't matter anymore (since there are better tools than either of them). For those areas where it still matters (systems programming, scientific software), C++ is the better language.
However, I was trying to get into the mind of people that complain about X and make a case for why they might have issues with it.
But you're misrepresenting OS X. OS X uses a client/server architecture for its display, just like X11. Windows also uses a client/server architecture for its display, just like X11. And while X11 got the design right from the start, the display servers on OS X and Windows are messy retrofits.
To the degree that the OS X desktop is faster or more polished at all than what you can get for Linux (debatable), it's simply because Apple put in a lot of work into polishing their toolkit and into their display drivers, and because they waste a ton of memory on caching.
Re:Anything else out there?
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
A lot of Mac's success *IS* because its gui framework.
The GUI framework on the Mac is Cocoa. The equivalent of Cocoa is Gnome (or KDE). The underlying display server, the equivalent of X11, is Quartz.
it appears to be managed in frame buffer
But it isn't. OS X has the same client/server display architecture as a Gnome desktop.
with custom rom that makes sure you never see bios info -- just pretty pictures.
What you see on OS X is that the boot loader quickly throws up a gray screen to keep you from seeing the boot loader text; the text itself is still there. If you like, you can boot OS X completely in text mode, just like a Linux system.
the removal of large swaths of abstraction make it load and "talk" faster.
The OS X display server has at least as many layers of abstraction as X11. It is not intrinsically faster than X11 (if anything, it's slower). Mostly what you perceive as speed on OS X is massive amounts of backing store.
the use of pdf rendering
OS X doesn't really use PDF rendering.
and enforcing policy rather than just providing tools means that things like cut and paste work from app to app, every app.
I own several Macs. The notion that "cut and paste work from app to app, every app" is laughable, and Apple couldn't enforce that if they tried.
Furthermore, if anything, policy is determined by the GUI framework, not the display server.
That is the sort of thing that X fails on for the casual or home user.
Whatever problems you think the Linux desktop may have, they have nothing to do with X11; consistency and policy is determined by the desktop environment, not the display server.
For "desktop linux," I don't see why the system isn't reworked to run off of a frame-buffer and scrap all the X crap -- still keep X for running networked apps.oh, wait -- that's more or less how OS X is organized, isn't it? Or Windows... you know, the successful "desktop" operating systems -- not the systems that were designed for collaborative efforts in scientific and research environments.
That's because that would be the wrong direction to go. All major desktop operating systems now use a client server architecture with a binary communications protocol because that's the right way to implement a window system on a modern protected mode OS. And X11 has the best implementation and design for that kind of architecture: its calls, protocols, and IPC mechanisms were designed for this purpose from the ground up and are mature. The Windows and OS X display servers are attempts at retrofitting X11-like protocols into systems not originally designed for it.
Why is there such a lack of interest in X.org, when so many other projects depend on it.
There's a lack of interest because it basically works without problems. When was the last time you wanted anything changed in the X server? I can't even remember the last time it crashed.
It's working well enough for me (and it works a lot better than the alternatives from Apple and Microsoft). And probably most other Linux users feel the same way, which is why it isn't getting a lot of attention.
Wow I feel like a moron for have ever attempted to defend Hans online at all.
You shouldn't. To most people, even people who "defended" him, it was more likely than not that he was guilty. But the legal criterion is "beyond a reasonable doubt". I think based on the publicly released evidence, there was still a reasonable doubt.
I still don't feel really comfortable with jurors making decisions based on "looking into people's eyes", as one of the jurors was saying; given how many people believe in astrology, mind reading, new age, and other supernatural stuff, I think there there's a lot of potential for bad decision making there. And there are, indeed, lots of wrongful convictions, so it's not like the system is working perfectly.
Still, it looks like the jurors were right on this one.
Getting journals to publish something however takes work, and that usually means you've said something significant about something significant.
Not necessarily. Journal reviews are often done by harried professors or just handed off to graduate students. Many of them don't know much of the literature themselves and don't do background research. As a result, a lot of old stuff gets republished again and again, and evaluations of intellectual challenging papers are almost random.
And authors are writing their papers accordingly...
It's not the moderation that annoyed me, it's that hype like this really leads to a lot of duplication of effort, as well as bad funding decisions.
You can bet that Google knows about this stuff and considered it. And, by the results that they show, these Swedish guys look like they have a lot of work to do to catch up with the state of the art.
They're not hybrids in the same sense of the word. A diesel electric train is basically a dirty great diesel electricity generator which powers an electric motor. There's no drive between diesel engine and wheels.
Contrary to what the paper suggests, the data has not been anonymized. Proper anonymization means that you cannot derive correlations between the behavior of the individuals
Right objective, wrong terminology. You are looking for terms like "privacy preservation" and "personal data protection", not "anonymization". Anonymization does not protect privacy, which is a well-known problem.
It would be "cool" if it hadn't been done before and if it were done well. But it has been done before, and done better. Look at the work leading up to the 3D mars renderings by G. Neukum.
The beauty of this is that it lets you get a map of virtually anywhere from the air.
No, that isn't the beauty of "this". These people have done a poor job at 3D rendering from aerial imaging. If you want to see well-rendered photographs based on aerial imaging, have a look at the Mars Express pictures:
This cup isn't "half empty", it's nearly completely empty. Melted 3D shapes viewable only from overhead are not an alternative to street level laser scanning. This isn't a new promising idea, it's an idea that's been around for decades and that simply does not lead to usable 3D models.
If people take hype and lies like "Google Earth beaten by autorendering from photos." as truth, then the funding to do the hard science and engineering to make this work for real disappears. More than one promising technology has been killed by hype like this.
So, if you don't want progress to grind to a halt, start thinking a bit more critically and opposed hype.
The techniques for recovering 3D shape from photographs have been well known for a while. But if all the pictures you use for the 3D reconstruction are from overhead, the street level view will be missing all the stuff you can't see from overhead. It may be called a "3D model", but it's not a complete or accurate 3D model.
If you want decent street level views, you really do need street level photographs. And laser scanners are still a lot more reliable than image based 3D reconstruction.
These measures spread fear, humiliate people, and breed distrust and suspicion. So do the constant "threat level orange" announcements, announcements that you're the eyes and ears of the state, and that you should watch your fellow citizens. People who are afraid and humiliated vote for "strong leaders" that promise to keep them safe, and a general feeling of distrust prevents civic organizations and organized political opposition.
The administration's political consultants and propaganda machine figured this out; in part, that's how Bush got through his mid-term election.
A side benefit to the administration is that all this gadgetry is enormously expensive and allows them to funnel R&D money and lucrative contracts to their friends in industry.
Do you think that European governments aren't listening in to everything you do or say? British police records and retains license plate information all over the place, as well as having installed massive video surveillance. Germany has passed a data retention law, and the main German phone company (and possibly some other companies) have been using stored data to spy on their employees and journalists. In addition, they tried out massive facial recognition screening in public places. It's pretty much the same thing in all Western nations.
And European governments have been falling all over each other trying to pass DMCA-like laws. That's in addition to already fairly draconian copyright laws and more limited "fair use" provisions.
And in the others? They screw you the old way: secret police, secret evidence, secret trials, informants, etc.
I guess one minor advantage of Europe is that they can't pass the death penalty for copyright infringement (since they don't like the death penalty) and that the prisons are apparently cleaner. And in Japan, at least you'll be bigger and meaner than everybody else. Beware of caning in Singapore, though.
But, really, you can't run away. The only way to fix this is to fix it at home.
Slashdot Mirror
Obj-C is often considered what C++ would have been, if C++ were done right.
Objective C may be better than C++ for GUI programming, but that really doesn't matter anymore (since there are better tools than either of them). For those areas where it still matters (systems programming, scientific software), C++ is the better language.
They ought to wait for the development of the metaphasic shield in 2369.
However, I was trying to get into the mind of people that complain about X and make a case for why they might have issues with it.
But you're misrepresenting OS X. OS X uses a client/server architecture for its display, just like X11. Windows also uses a client/server architecture for its display, just like X11. And while X11 got the design right from the start, the display servers on OS X and Windows are messy retrofits.
To the degree that the OS X desktop is faster or more polished at all than what you can get for Linux (debatable), it's simply because Apple put in a lot of work into polishing their toolkit and into their display drivers, and because they waste a ton of memory on caching.
A lot of Mac's success *IS* because its gui framework.
The GUI framework on the Mac is Cocoa. The equivalent of Cocoa is Gnome (or KDE). The underlying display server, the equivalent of X11, is Quartz.
it appears to be managed in frame buffer
But it isn't. OS X has the same client/server display architecture as a Gnome desktop.
with custom rom that makes sure you never see bios info -- just pretty pictures.
What you see on OS X is that the boot loader quickly throws up a gray screen to keep you from seeing the boot loader text; the text itself is still there. If you like, you can boot OS X completely in text mode, just like a Linux system.
the removal of large swaths of abstraction make it load and "talk" faster.
The OS X display server has at least as many layers of abstraction as X11. It is not intrinsically faster than X11 (if anything, it's slower). Mostly what you perceive as speed on OS X is massive amounts of backing store.
the use of pdf rendering
OS X doesn't really use PDF rendering.
and enforcing policy rather than just providing tools means that things like cut and paste work from app to app, every app.
I own several Macs. The notion that "cut and paste work from app to app, every app" is laughable, and Apple couldn't enforce that if they tried.
Furthermore, if anything, policy is determined by the GUI framework, not the display server.
That is the sort of thing that X fails on for the casual or home user.
Whatever problems you think the Linux desktop may have, they have nothing to do with X11; consistency and policy is determined by the desktop environment, not the display server.
For "desktop linux," I don't see why the system isn't reworked to run off of a frame-buffer and scrap all the X crap -- still keep X for running networked apps.oh, wait -- that's more or less how OS X is organized, isn't it? Or Windows... you know, the successful "desktop" operating systems -- not the systems that were designed for collaborative efforts in scientific and research environments.
That's because that would be the wrong direction to go. All major desktop operating systems now use a client server architecture with a binary communications protocol because that's the right way to implement a window system on a modern protected mode OS. And X11 has the best implementation and design for that kind of architecture: its calls, protocols, and IPC mechanisms were designed for this purpose from the ground up and are mature. The Windows and OS X display servers are attempts at retrofitting X11-like protocols into systems not originally designed for it.
Why is there such a lack of interest in X.org, when so many other projects depend on it.
There's a lack of interest because it basically works without problems. When was the last time you wanted anything changed in the X server? I can't even remember the last time it crashed.
It's working well enough for me (and it works a lot better than the alternatives from Apple and Microsoft). And probably most other Linux users feel the same way, which is why it isn't getting a lot of attention.
Since even Microsoft has switched to ODF, that's pretty much a no-brainer :-)
Last I checked liquid water is called ice
:-)
Maybe you should check again
Wow I feel like a moron for have ever attempted to defend Hans online at all.
You shouldn't. To most people, even people who "defended" him, it was more likely than not that he was guilty. But the legal criterion is "beyond a reasonable doubt". I think based on the publicly released evidence, there was still a reasonable doubt.
I still don't feel really comfortable with jurors making decisions based on "looking into people's eyes", as one of the jurors was saying; given how many people believe in astrology, mind reading, new age, and other supernatural stuff, I think there there's a lot of potential for bad decision making there. And there are, indeed, lots of wrongful convictions, so it's not like the system is working perfectly.
Still, it looks like the jurors were right on this one.
Because the lack of "...on the internet" is in some cases considered a loophole in existing laws.
Just like "Doing X on the internet." is a completely different patent from "Doing X." It's all getting clear now.
Getting journals to publish something however takes work, and that usually means you've said something significant about something significant.
Not necessarily. Journal reviews are often done by harried professors or just handed off to graduate students. Many of them don't know much of the literature themselves and don't do background research. As a result, a lot of old stuff gets republished again and again, and evaluations of intellectual challenging papers are almost random.
And authors are writing their papers accordingly...
Unfortunately, the quality control by academic journals is getting worse and worse.
Thanks for responding.
It's not the moderation that annoyed me, it's that hype like this really leads to a lot of duplication of effort, as well as bad funding decisions.
You can bet that Google knows about this stuff and considered it. And, by the results that they show, these Swedish guys look like they have a lot of work to do to catch up with the state of the art.
Those images were created using a stereo camera and photogrammetry.
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/267813.html
Why do jerks like you insist on presenting things they imagine to be true as fact?
They're not hybrids in the same sense of the word. A diesel electric train is basically a dirty great diesel electricity generator which powers an electric motor. There's no drive between diesel engine and wheels.
That's a hybrid, more specifically a series hybrid.
Contrary to what the paper suggests, the data has not been anonymized. Proper anonymization means that you cannot derive correlations between the behavior of the individuals
Right objective, wrong terminology. You are looking for terms like "privacy preservation" and "personal data protection", not "anonymization". Anonymization does not protect privacy, which is a well-known problem.
It would be "cool" if it hadn't been done before and if it were done well. But it has been done before, and done better. Look at the work leading up to the 3D mars renderings by G. Neukum.
If you want to see high quality 3D reconstructions from aerial photographs, go here:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/267813.html
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5073723324007466679
The beauty of this is that it lets you get a map of virtually anywhere from the air.
No, that isn't the beauty of "this". These people have done a poor job at 3D rendering from aerial imaging. If you want to see well-rendered photographs based on aerial imaging, have a look at the Mars Express pictures:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEM565R03EF_0.html
That was done 10 years ago, and even then, the underlying technologies weren't new.
The cup is always half empty for you isn't it?
This cup isn't "half empty", it's nearly completely empty. Melted 3D shapes viewable only from overhead are not an alternative to street level laser scanning. This isn't a new promising idea, it's an idea that's been around for decades and that simply does not lead to usable 3D models.
If people take hype and lies like "Google Earth beaten by autorendering from photos." as truth, then the funding to do the hard science and engineering to make this work for real disappears. More than one promising technology has been killed by hype like this.
So, if you don't want progress to grind to a halt, start thinking a bit more critically and opposed hype.
The techniques for recovering 3D shape from photographs have been well known for a while. But if all the pictures you use for the 3D reconstruction are from overhead, the street level view will be missing all the stuff you can't see from overhead. It may be called a "3D model", but it's not a complete or accurate 3D model.
If you want decent street level views, you really do need street level photographs. And laser scanners are still a lot more reliable than image based 3D reconstruction.
These measures spread fear, humiliate people, and breed distrust and suspicion. So do the constant "threat level orange" announcements, announcements that you're the eyes and ears of the state, and that you should watch your fellow citizens. People who are afraid and humiliated vote for "strong leaders" that promise to keep them safe, and a general feeling of distrust prevents civic organizations and organized political opposition.
The administration's political consultants and propaganda machine figured this out; in part, that's how Bush got through his mid-term election.
A side benefit to the administration is that all this gadgetry is enormously expensive and allows them to funnel R&D money and lucrative contracts to their friends in industry.
Where do you want to run?
Do you think that European governments aren't listening in to everything you do or say? British police records and retains license plate information all over the place, as well as having installed massive video surveillance. Germany has passed a data retention law, and the main German phone company (and possibly some other companies) have been using stored data to spy on their employees and journalists. In addition, they tried out massive facial recognition screening in public places. It's pretty much the same thing in all Western nations.
And European governments have been falling all over each other trying to pass DMCA-like laws. That's in addition to already fairly draconian copyright laws and more limited "fair use" provisions.
And in the others? They screw you the old way: secret police, secret evidence, secret trials, informants, etc.
I guess one minor advantage of Europe is that they can't pass the death penalty for copyright infringement (since they don't like the death penalty) and that the prisons are apparently cleaner. And in Japan, at least you'll be bigger and meaner than everybody else. Beware of caning in Singapore, though.
But, really, you can't run away. The only way to fix this is to fix it at home.
That's exactly my freakin' point.
And my point is that the Islamic terrorists did act in the name of a religion: Islam. That's why they are called Islamic terrorists.