You need choice. Some people call it bloat but most people have the need to rearrange their desktops every once in a while. Choice means being able to change window managers, change every function on screen and change look and feel (ala Java's swing functionality). Some people (myself included) love MDI, others prefer multiple desktops - solution is for every app to have a choice between those. Choice also means being able to switch off functionality if it makes things run slower (removing IE from Windows would make it boot faster, rewriting X into kernel would make it run faster etc.). Let user make choice between looks, functionality and stability. Most people only need one of the three but not everyone needs the same one. Finally choice means making choosing and changing things easy. If choices are hidden in multiple menu selections, various control panels or config files scattered accross the harddisk then it's like giving a user no choice at all. Personally, I think a human-readable registry is a good thing, but it then has to be comprehensive so that ALL software uses it and there then must be a nice graphical client for it. In UNIX, user-friendliness is compromised among other things by POSIX standard, so that you must have "/dev" rather than "/listing of your devices". You can play tricks, but an inquisitive user will find/dev and will be confused. When designing user interface assume user will get into every nook and cranny and be confused by any inconsistency. The only place a user will not get into is the binaries themselves, so internally you can use any cryptic names you want (although that ain't good practice either) but EVERYTHING visible to user must be consistent and logical. When I say logical, again, every user has different logic so give them a way to change how things are done. That by itself means that POSIX is bad. Windows is even worse. I do not believe that UI will change with voice recognition. The only thing that can improve UI is good AI that adapts to the user and ideally can sense the mood of the user at a given time.
So may I ask, why would you sign a release for them? Isn't this a. A good place to make a stance in court if need be? b. A good way to drag a proprietary piece of code into free/open software category?
For scientific computing, you'd want something like RS6000, alpha or MIPS box with as many processors as you can afford. If you are thinking affordable you are not really thinking high-end scientific floating point number crunchers.
Your argument would be true, but he measures weight in [kg], i.e. he uses mass units. In SI system, weight would be measured in Newtons. FYI, I have a Masters degree in physics and am going for my PhD.
The rest mass of a photon is zero indeed. However, photons definitely carry energy, otherwise Sun wouldn't warm the Earth, lasers wouldn't burn and most of quantum mechanics would be impossible, because transition between different energy states would become unfavorable. Now we all know E=mc^2. Photons have E!=0, so their effective mass is non-zero. Indeed, light cannot escape black (sic!) holes because of this. In relativity, any energy clump bends time-space. Don't get hung up on the word mass (or weight, as the referred site seems to prefer the layman's language) - photons definitely bend universe, as would gravitons (if/when discovered). General relativity is highly non-linear. Live with it.
I do not want to get into a discussion of Nabokov, mainly because it is not my field. Nonetheless, Sirin's important works, e.g. Mashen'ka, Invitation to Execution and Luzhin's Defense were written in Russian. True, he translated his own works into English, but the original writings were in Russian and from what I understand, bear an imprint of Russian literary style even in translation. Some writings, like Camera Obscura were rewritten to a larger extent such that even its name cannot be recognized in English translation, ("Laughter in the Dark"). Incidentally, Nabokov also wrote in French. Nabokov himself made the point I was trying to make when he said: "Desperate Russian critics, trying hard to find an Influence and to pigeonhole my own novels, have once or twice linked me up with Gogol, but when they looked again I had untied the knots and the box was empty." This is a specific case of denial of cumulative progress in humanities. It doesn't make humanities less valuable but it makes the humanities side of "academia" and "scholarly journals" pointless. As for psychology, it's major goal as a science is to be able to tell what a given person would do if put in a particular situation, and to be able to guide or direct a given person toward a given set of responses. So far neither goal has been achieved or even approached from a promising direction. Freud for instance was quick to acknoledge that his "models" were only useful so long as we didn't have detailed understanding of how brain works. In other words, they weren't useful. And precisely because these people didn't have an idea of how the brain worked on a molecular level, they did not know what they were talking about, by definition. This applies to all people in the field, who do not study brain structure. It is important to realize that people who study human behavior, without studying the chemistry and physics of it are basically wasting time. I think Skinner's opinion of a typical physics paper might have been: "I don't get it". I would trust that statement. However I resent the idea that only professionals in the field can judge the fields state of progress. Anyone who spends several months seriously studying the field should be able to express their own opinion and expect it to be respected. Finally, calling science a religion is not new. During the French revolution, a bunch of psychos governing the country, proclaimed Reason their god. Any belief can be called religious. I certainly beleive that the world we perceive can be understood in terms of fundamental physical laws, expressed in the language of mathematics. This belief is not a dogma, but so far, there is no counter-example.
You have completely perverted my argument. I said in essence that scholarly journals only make sense for exact sciences. Sure, people can write essays and studies in humanities, some of those a given reader would judge as good, but there is no cumulative progress coming from them. People don't write better literature because of some study, so those studies are only of subjective interest. For instance, yes I have read most of Nabokov (though notably not Lolita). Indeed, unlike you (presumably) I read his works in their native language. Can you claim that he wrote better or worse because of reading Belinsky's literary critique? Would he have written better or worse if he hadn't been exposed to Russian literary tradition? What does better or worse mean? Indeed, the last question is the important one because without a clear definition of what is good and what is not you can't have a scholarly journal as Sokal's experiment showed. It makes me laugh to think that a humanities journal would have reviewers. To do what? What makes for a good article? Once again, what does "good" mean for humanities papers? Yes, I said humanities not just postmodernism. As for psychology: that field used to be all speculation and no real science. I have read a lot of Skinner and Freud and Young and a few other big names and came away with a realization that these people didn't know what they were talking about. The only controlled experiment up until middle of this century (AFAIK) was Pavlov's dog. Only recently, with the advancement of molecular-level techniques did psychology evolve into a real science. Also MRI and related techniques are helping a lot. Biology became science with the advent of genetics. Today, molecular biology is surely a science. I am not uniquely qualified to judge anything, if by that you mean rendering a binding universally true verdict. But I am qualified to state my opinion. I do not like to be flamed, especially by people who can't understand a simple thesis and apparently love to quote out of context.
The notion of academia inludes both humanities and exact sciences. The hoax made it clear humanities are a subjective field, and their studies are indeed often gibberish dressed in jargon. BTW, there are lots of other pieces of evidence to that effect, such as the proliferation of quacks who claimed (and probably still do) that child abuse is pervasive and who implanted memories of child abuse in their patients. However, it is important to understand that the exact sciences are a much more rigorous field. A theoretical physicist may be able to publish gibberish but others will jump in to correct him. Most journals I know routinely publish replies to other people's work and most have established procedures for such peer review. Ultimately, theory gets verified by experiment. For an experimental physicist, it is possible to make the proverbial data generator and submit fake data, which is why important results are not considered verified until several people routinely see the same thing. It is preferred if people from different measurement types get data that agrees with one another. Also, people do go to other people's labs and inspect experimental setup directly. In fact, many fields are extremely paranoid about integrity and every little aspect of an important work will get scrutinized. In my view, academia and scholarly journals can be separated into two halves: those that speak math and those that don't. The publications of the latter half are not worth the paper they are written on, as Sokal's hoax showed so clearly. The former half however is driving force behind our society and is as real and reliable as the rest of the real world.
Hmm, apparently NW has its own share of rednecks. I understand distrusting gov't, but saying there ain't no environmental issues is quite extreme and naive. Go to big apple, walk along Fifth Avenue and take a deep breath. Now stop coughing and rethink your position.
The version of AbiWord I was trying was 0.7.7 It messed up fonts and inserted a paragraph twice, once where it was supposed to go and once at the end of the document. After some more manipulations, it did rearrange paragraphs on its own. Some paragraphs even got deleted, some had their fonts change again. I am sorry that I did not submit a bug report, although honestly I had no time to see if this could be reproduced. I just fired up that version of AbiWord again and tried cutting and pasting and immediately I saw saw that when I paste, some portions of text become invisible and to make them reappear I need to select blank space where the words would be.
I tried AbiWord at work on winNT. It had more functionality than notepad but was not at all stable or reliable. It did weird shit with cut and paste operations and then on a whim rearranged the order of paragraphs in my letter. For now I am back to notepad.
It would require more than a paradigm shift. See, there is a reason why high frequency connectors get smaller and smaller. There is a reason why GHz people don't use BNC and such. To get good characteristics on high frequency signal you are almost forced to shrink your design or else adhere to insane tolerances. The first way leads to on-chip cache, the second leads to very expensive RAM. Rambus is a good early indicator of how RAM gets expensive as you bump up clock speed. There is also a problem of synchronization. Even within one fast enough chip you can't have one clock running the show because of relativity issues. Engineers are starting to deal with this today so it's not a far away problem. But now imagine a physically remote RAM chip (remote here can mean as little as a millimeter away). Even if you could run it as fast as the microprocessor, you couldn't keep them in synch. Having ultra-fast RAM is quite pointless, IMHO. You want local caches all over your chip. In the future chips will likely have many units on the same die working from their own clock and with their own cache.
Re:I just hope it runs INSTEAD of X, not on top of
on
New Desktop for Linux
·
· Score: 1
No, it damn well not have any networking code, or more to the point, all networking code should be separate. It should be trivial to compile X for one display, two display, n displays, two computers over peer to peer, or n computers over LAN or whatever. The point is, X is bloatware because it compiles EVERYTHING in by default. And because code is not modular, it too contains EVERYTHING by default. Now do you see the problem? Or are you too brainwashed by Larry Ellison, like the poster above you. As for why, windows used to run much faster with respect to graphics and rendering than even your puny twm with X on same hardware. I am not talking about quake performance here, but simple window drag operations. So I figure until X with basic window manager can beat pants off every other system they better not be focusing on any more functionality. And maybe removing some of that functionality would speed up the system. And from what I understand the real performance leader they should be gunning after is Be, not Windows, although just catching up with Windows would be nice.
Re:I just hope it runs INSTEAD of X, not on top of
on
New Desktop for Linux
·
· Score: 1
Motif has been around for a long time. That doesn't make it less ugly or less in need of replacement. I have said this a zillion times: I want X windows without any networking code. I want windowing environment where not a single bit is wasted on stuff like "export" command. Assume the user has one and only one display and render to that. NO OTHER OPTIONS!!!
This is a travesty. Giving pulpit to this democratic puppet shows/.'s integrity these days. I just have one question: how much did Gore's campaign pay VAL to get this publicity?
I just mentioned HURD because it is open, microkernel based and control by Free Software people. It'd be same issue with any other OS, e.g. OS X, QNX, Be, etc. If I wanted (and I do) to use Crusoe in an embedded application, reference code for underlying hardware would be nice as well.
It may not be a driver but it affects functionality of the computer. Indeed, if GNU were to write HURD microkernel directly to Crusoe hardware bypassing the emulation layer, it could probably be a faster solution than Crusoe package and an OS on top of it's code morphing code. Porting stuff to underlying hardware would be easier if reference code were open. It'd make sense to open all non-fabbed portions of Crusoe.
The most valuable content/. has is readership. It takes time to build up readership and people stick around. /. of today has unfair moderation, irrelevant or speculative articles and features (Katz anyone) and nowadays I find the register more insightful and true to fact. The only thing keeping people here is the sheer volume of readership: in the midst of all those comments, there is bound to be an insightful one, but it is getting harder and harder to find those./. today can be used as an example of herd mentality among the educated people. /. integrity is a myth. Most of the "news" are links elsewhere, so it can't be that new, and in fact nowadays most articles with news in them are posted twice or more in the span of a month. "Stuff that matters" apparently now means Katz, nuf said. As for being biased, this is the site that publishes every last word ESR spits out, and more generally this site lately seems interested in promoting "cult of personality" with respect to some high profile people (e.g. calling Carmack "his holiness"). Those same high profile people used to post in discussion threads, as mere mortals. Also, this is the site that had an interview with JP. What integrity are we talking about here?
So how do I make those triangle buttons to look different? I have long concluded that the main uglyness of Motif comes from triangular arrows on buttons, combo-boxes and scrollbars. Also round buttons and radio boxes are ugly, although Mozilla people have found a way to generate even uglier round 3D effects. QT and windows are plain but tolerable. I have yet to see an astoundingly beautiful set of controls, but Motif is one of the ugliest things I have seen. Heck, I'd rather use curses-based stuff.
Well, maybe somebody with the resources of sourceforge will start a real open source search engine, complete with sites database and a commitment to no ads or other non-relevant information. Basically a doubleclick-free zone good at searches. Also, it'd be nice to search using an engine where placement on search results can't be bought.
Slashdot Mirror
You need choice. Some people call it bloat /dev and will be confused. When designing
but most people have the need to rearrange
their desktops every once in a while.
Choice means being able to change window
managers, change every function on screen
and change look and feel (ala Java's swing
functionality). Some people (myself included)
love MDI, others prefer multiple desktops -
solution is for every app to have a choice
between those.
Choice also means being able to switch off
functionality if it makes things run slower
(removing IE from Windows would make it boot
faster, rewriting X into kernel would make it
run faster etc.). Let user make choice between
looks, functionality and stability. Most people
only need one of the three but not everyone needs
the same one.
Finally choice means making choosing and changing
things easy. If choices are hidden in multiple
menu selections, various control panels or
config files scattered accross the harddisk then
it's like giving a user no choice at all.
Personally, I think a human-readable registry is
a good thing, but it then has to be comprehensive
so that ALL software uses it and there then must
be a nice graphical client for it. In UNIX,
user-friendliness is compromised among other
things by POSIX standard, so that you must have
"/dev" rather than "/listing of your devices".
You can play tricks, but an inquisitive user will
find
user interface assume user will get into every
nook and cranny and be confused by any inconsistency. The only place a user will not get
into is the binaries themselves, so internally
you can use any cryptic names you want (although
that ain't good practice either) but EVERYTHING
visible to user must be consistent and logical.
When I say logical, again, every user has different logic so give them a way to change how
things are done. That by itself means that
POSIX is bad. Windows is even worse.
I do not believe that UI will change with voice
recognition. The only thing that can improve
UI is good AI that adapts to the user and ideally
can sense the mood of the user at a given time.
So may I ask, why would you sign a release
for them? Isn't this
a. A good place to make a stance in court if
need be?
b. A good way to drag a proprietary piece of
code into free/open software category?
For scientific computing, you'd want
something like RS6000, alpha or MIPS
box with as many processors as you can
afford.
If you are thinking affordable you are
not really thinking high-end scientific
floating point number crunchers.
Your argument would be true, but he measures
weight in [kg], i.e. he uses mass units.
In SI system, weight would be measured in
Newtons.
FYI, I have a Masters degree in physics and am
going for my PhD.
The rest mass of a photon is zero indeed. However, photons definitely carry energy, otherwise Sun wouldn't warm the Earth, lasers wouldn't burn and most of quantum mechanics would be impossible, because transition between different energy states would become unfavorable. Now we all know E=mc^2. Photons have E!=0, so their effective mass is non-zero. Indeed, light cannot escape black (sic!) holes because of this. In relativity, any energy clump bends time-space. Don't get hung up on the word mass (or weight, as the referred site seems to prefer the layman's language) - photons definitely bend universe, as would gravitons (if/when discovered). General relativity is highly non-linear. Live with it.
Take the entire USA internet population, /. crowd. Now the majority of
subtract
this bunch are AOLers. I dunno about the
rest of the world.
Well, so long as there is no claim to
objectivity or impartiality, I guess
having editors would represent added value.
I do not want to get into a discussion of
Nabokov, mainly because it is not my field.
Nonetheless, Sirin's important works,
e.g. Mashen'ka, Invitation to Execution and
Luzhin's Defense were written in Russian.
True, he translated his own works into English,
but the original writings were in Russian and
from what I understand, bear an imprint of
Russian literary style even in translation.
Some writings, like Camera Obscura were rewritten
to a larger extent such that even its name
cannot be recognized in English translation,
("Laughter in the Dark"). Incidentally, Nabokov
also wrote in French.
Nabokov himself made the point I was trying to
make when he said: "Desperate Russian critics,
trying hard to find an Influence and to pigeonhole
my own novels, have once or twice linked me up
with Gogol, but when they looked again I had
untied the knots and the box was empty."
This is a specific case of denial of cumulative
progress in humanities. It doesn't make
humanities less valuable but it makes the
humanities side of "academia" and "scholarly
journals" pointless.
As for psychology, it's major goal as a science
is to be able to tell what a given person would
do if put in a particular situation, and to be
able to guide or direct a given person toward a
given set of responses. So far neither goal has
been achieved or even approached from a promising
direction. Freud for instance was quick to
acknoledge that his "models" were only useful
so long as we didn't have detailed understanding
of how brain works. In other words, they weren't
useful. And precisely because these people
didn't have an idea of how the brain worked on
a molecular level, they did not know what they
were talking about, by definition. This applies
to all people in the field, who do not study
brain structure. It is important to realize that
people who study human behavior, without studying
the chemistry and physics of it are basically
wasting time.
I think Skinner's opinion of a typical physics
paper might have been: "I don't get it". I would
trust that statement. However I resent the idea
that only professionals in the field can judge
the fields state of progress. Anyone who spends
several months seriously studying the field
should be able to express their own opinion
and expect it to be respected.
Finally, calling science a religion is not new.
During the French revolution, a bunch of psychos
governing the country, proclaimed Reason their
god. Any belief can be called religious.
I certainly beleive that the world we perceive can
be understood in terms of fundamental physical
laws, expressed in the language of mathematics.
This belief is not a dogma, but so far, there is
no counter-example.
You have completely perverted my argument.
I said in essence that scholarly journals
only make sense for exact sciences. Sure,
people can write essays and studies in
humanities, some of those a given reader would
judge as good, but there is no cumulative
progress coming from them. People don't write
better literature because of some study, so
those studies are only of subjective interest.
For instance, yes I have read most of Nabokov
(though notably not Lolita). Indeed, unlike you
(presumably) I read his works in their native
language. Can you claim that he wrote better or
worse because of reading Belinsky's literary
critique? Would he have written better or worse
if he hadn't been exposed to Russian literary
tradition? What does better or worse mean?
Indeed, the last question is the important one
because without a clear definition of what is
good and what is not you can't have a scholarly
journal as Sokal's experiment showed. It makes
me laugh to think that a humanities journal
would have reviewers. To do what? What makes for
a good article? Once again, what does "good"
mean for humanities papers? Yes, I said
humanities not just postmodernism.
As for psychology: that field used to be all
speculation and no real science. I have read
a lot of Skinner and Freud and Young and a few
other big names and came away with a realization
that these people didn't know what they were
talking about. The only controlled experiment
up until middle of this century (AFAIK) was
Pavlov's dog. Only recently, with the advancement
of molecular-level techniques did psychology
evolve into a real science. Also MRI and related
techniques are helping a lot.
Biology became science with the advent of
genetics. Today, molecular biology is surely a
science.
I am not uniquely qualified to judge anything,
if by that you mean rendering a binding
universally true verdict. But I am qualified to
state my opinion. I do not like to be flamed,
especially by people who can't understand a
simple thesis and apparently love to quote
out of context.
The notion of academia inludes both humanities and exact sciences. The hoax made it clear humanities are a subjective field, and their studies are indeed often gibberish dressed in jargon. BTW, there are lots of other pieces of evidence to that effect, such as the proliferation of quacks who claimed (and probably still do) that child abuse is pervasive and who implanted memories of child abuse in their patients. However, it is important to understand that the exact sciences are a much more rigorous field. A theoretical physicist may be able to publish gibberish but others will jump in to correct him. Most journals I know routinely publish replies to other people's work and most have established procedures for such peer review. Ultimately, theory gets verified by experiment. For an experimental physicist, it is possible to make the proverbial data generator and submit fake data, which is why important results are not considered verified until several people routinely see the same thing. It is preferred if people from different measurement types get data that agrees with one another. Also, people do go to other people's labs and inspect experimental setup directly. In fact, many fields are extremely paranoid about integrity and every little aspect of an important work will get scrutinized. In my view, academia and scholarly journals can be separated into two halves: those that speak math and those that don't. The publications of the latter half are not worth the paper they are written on, as Sokal's hoax showed so clearly. The former half however is driving force behind our society and is as real and reliable as the rest of the real world.
Hmm, apparently NW has its own share of
rednecks. I understand distrusting gov't,
but saying there ain't no environmental
issues is quite extreme and naive. Go to
big apple, walk along Fifth Avenue and take
a deep breath. Now stop coughing and rethink
your position.
There's gotta be a book like
"temperance for dummies". Read it.
Use tin-silver solder. Certain alloys
are quite harmless even if swallowed.
The version of AbiWord I was trying was 0.7.7
It messed up fonts and inserted a paragraph
twice, once where it was supposed to go and once
at the end of the document.
After some more manipulations, it did rearrange
paragraphs on its own. Some paragraphs even got
deleted, some had their fonts change again.
I am sorry that I did not submit a bug report,
although honestly I had no time to see if this
could be reproduced.
I just fired up that version of AbiWord again
and tried cutting and pasting and immediately
I saw saw that when I paste, some portions of
text become invisible and to make them reappear I
need to select blank space where the words would
be.
I tried AbiWord at work on winNT.
It had more functionality than
notepad but was not at all stable
or reliable. It did weird shit with
cut and paste operations and then
on a whim rearranged the order of
paragraphs in my letter. For now I am
back to notepad.
It would require more than a paradigm shift.
See, there is a reason why high frequency
connectors get smaller and smaller. There
is a reason why GHz people don't use BNC
and such. To get good characteristics on high
frequency signal you are almost forced to
shrink your design or else adhere to insane
tolerances. The first way leads to on-chip
cache, the second leads to very expensive RAM.
Rambus is a good early indicator of how RAM
gets expensive as you bump up clock speed.
There is also a problem of synchronization.
Even within one fast enough chip you can't
have one clock running the show because of
relativity issues. Engineers are starting to
deal with this today so it's not a far away
problem. But now imagine a physically remote
RAM chip (remote here can mean as little as
a millimeter away). Even if you could run it as
fast as the microprocessor, you couldn't keep
them in synch.
Having ultra-fast RAM is quite pointless, IMHO.
You want local caches all over your chip. In the
future chips will likely have many units on the
same die working from their own clock and with
their own cache.
No, it damn well not have any networking code,
or more to the point, all networking code
should be separate. It should be trivial to
compile X for one display, two display,
n displays, two computers over peer to peer,
or n computers over LAN or whatever. The point is,
X is bloatware because it compiles EVERYTHING
in by default. And because code is not modular,
it too contains EVERYTHING by default. Now do you
see the problem? Or are you too brainwashed by
Larry Ellison, like the poster above you.
As for why, windows used to run much faster
with respect to graphics and rendering than
even your puny twm with X on same hardware.
I am not talking about quake performance here,
but simple window drag operations.
So I figure until X with basic window manager
can beat pants off every other system they better
not be focusing on any more functionality. And
maybe removing some of that functionality would
speed up the system. And from what I understand
the real performance leader they should be gunning
after is Be, not Windows, although just catching
up with Windows would be nice.
WINE
Is
Not an
Emulator
Motif has been around for a long time.
That doesn't make it less ugly or less
in need of replacement.
I have said this a zillion times: I want
X windows without any networking code.
I want windowing environment where
not a single bit is wasted on stuff like
"export" command. Assume the user has one
and only one display and render to that.
NO OTHER OPTIONS!!!
This is a travesty. Giving pulpit to this /.'s integrity these
democratic puppet shows
days.
I just have one question: how much did Gore's
campaign pay VAL to get this publicity?
I just mentioned HURD because it is open,
microkernel based and control by Free Software
people. It'd be same issue with any other OS,
e.g. OS X, QNX, Be, etc. If I wanted (and I do)
to use Crusoe in an embedded application,
reference code for underlying hardware would
be nice as well.
It may not be a driver but it affects
functionality of the computer. Indeed,
if GNU were to write HURD microkernel
directly to Crusoe hardware bypassing the
emulation layer, it could probably be a
faster solution than Crusoe package and
an OS on top of it's code morphing code.
Porting stuff to underlying hardware would
be easier if reference code were open.
It'd make sense to open all non-fabbed
portions of Crusoe.
The most valuable content /. has is /. today can be used as an
readership. It takes time to build up
readership and people stick around.
/. of today has unfair moderation,
irrelevant or speculative articles
and features (Katz anyone) and nowadays
I find the register more insightful
and true to fact. The only thing keeping
people here is the sheer volume of
readership: in the midst of all those
comments, there is bound to be an insightful
one, but it is getting harder and harder
to find those.
example of herd mentality among the educated
people.
/. integrity is a myth. Most of the "news"
are links elsewhere, so it can't be that new,
and in fact nowadays most articles with news
in them are posted twice or more in the span of
a month. "Stuff that matters" apparently now
means Katz, nuf said. As for being biased,
this is the site that publishes every last word
ESR spits out, and more generally this site
lately seems interested in promoting "cult of
personality" with respect to some high profile
people (e.g. calling Carmack "his holiness").
Those same high profile people used to post
in discussion threads, as mere mortals.
Also, this is the site that had an interview
with JP. What integrity are we talking about
here?
So how do I make those triangle buttons to look different?
I have long concluded that the main uglyness of Motif
comes from triangular arrows on buttons, combo-boxes
and scrollbars. Also round buttons and radio boxes are ugly,
although Mozilla people have found a way to generate even
uglier round 3D effects. QT and windows are plain but
tolerable. I have yet to see an astoundingly beautiful
set of controls, but Motif is one of the ugliest things I have
seen. Heck, I'd rather use curses-based stuff.
Well, maybe somebody with the resources of sourceforge
will start a real open source search engine, complete
with sites database and a commitment to no ads or other
non-relevant information. Basically a doubleclick-free zone
good at searches.
Also, it'd be nice to search using an engine where placement
on search results can't be bought.