Re:I think they are going in the wrong direction h
on
The Future of KDE
·
· Score: 1
A computer with one mouse button cannot be productive or easy to use. Example: on a Mac there is no easy way to open a link in a new window in Netscape. That is the single most annoying thing about any computer hardware arrangement, short of plug and pray.
This scheme would reduce functionality of speakers in exactly the same way as DIVX reduced functionality of DVD disks, namely you wont be able to switch speakers between boxes. This makes this scheme very hard to sell even if you could get the price down.
Why recompress? Compression is needed for download. Presumably you already downloaded a file in MS format. Once the file is cracked, just send the resulting.wav or.au file to a CD-R and be happy. You might also want to make an audio CD, to listen in your car or anywhere. Again, could anyone enlighten me as to why you need to recompress?
I think you missed the biggest concerns of all: privacy and availability. There is no way you can trust any organization or person running the server to keep your data private. Signing up for such a rental, your biggest payment may be in the form of personal data. In case you did not realize this, it is more valuable than your monthly utility bill payment. So factoring this in, it'll probably make sense to buy most software outright, especially things like tax software. Of course so much of the software is available for free, that buying may be a thing of the past anyway. In general, this idea is based on the assumption that a new sales model will preserve old brand loyalty, which is not at all obvious to me. For example, I regularly check CNN site for news, but I do not have a CNN channel on my local cable. I think a shift in software sales will nudge people to rethink their software usage. This may be very dangerous for MS. Also, as people above have pointed out, there are times when you need software NOW, so you cannot have a PhD thesis sitting somewhere on a server, your defense scheduled for tomorrow and your network experiencing a brownout or an outright failure. I see software rental as viable only for one-time use things, like children apps, e.g. schools would rent educational software needed for this week for this grade.
Lastly, could someone clue me in on how you rent an operating system? Does your bios have a tcp/ip stack and downloads stuff on startup? Why is windows being mentioned?
They sould make an encryption-decryption box, not a phone set. That way you could run all your data securely, and it'd be much faster than software encryption.
I kind of agree, but as people have been saying about WinNT, it does not matter to me what happens at the server end - I am a user, I should not experience glitches. Granted it is more serious for NT because they are rebooting or crashing while with crack machine you just have to restart your browser, but I'd still count it as a crack.
If some of this is a reference to me then let me enlighten you: a. I am extremely poor and I do not foresee making decent money any time soon. b. I am expressing my worldview, which is not rooted in my financial situation. Only a Marxist pig (pardon the flame) would associate one's views and their financial interests.
Prisons do not have to be more expensive if you abolish Constitutionally guaranteed rights for prisoners. Already the second amendment does not apply in prisons, why should any other? I have been a long time proponent of locking people in literally four walls and no amenities of any kind. All you'd need is to feed these people (you could bring that cost down by standardizing rations and cutting down on expensive foods). Prisons are not meant to be comfortable, healthy or humane, they are meant as an extreme form of punishment.
So in essence you pay the bastards their money because you are afraid of them. They hold you for ransom in your own home. Quite a wimpy attitude you got there.
Re:I'm looking forward to the day they ditch X
on
Some KDE news
·
· Score: 1
I was going from the high-level approach, thinking that every bit of flexibility has its associated overhead. Thus, removing networking would gain me something if only.1% faster execution. One approach would be to compile X into programs and to pass requests on the same stack. I have a large HDD and can fit 20 times what is there now, so many chunks of X code lying around would not be a problem for me. But I agree that this is ugly and has its own problems. However I do not see anything wrong with using shared memory for every last bit. It'd be faster and could only be done locally. Lastly, I am starting to agree with a position that we need to move to openGL-based rendering, or in some other way move display management into hardware. Software is just too slow no matter how efficient it is.
I do not live in Canada (rather US0), but What's wrong with cutting welfare? If you ask me, all gov'ts should immediately cease to support any welfare or related benefits as leeching and tell people to work or starve to death, whichever they like more. Reducing welfare is what Clinton's doing and it's gonna be another century before we get all those beggars off our backs (if ever). I do not however support cuts in medical or education fields (regardless of country).
Re:I'm looking forward to the day they ditch X
on
Some KDE news
·
· Score: 1
Ok, enough with word games. I suggest eliminating the IP header to reduce message size. A pipe does not require headers, does it?
Re:I'm looking forward to the day they ditch X
on
Some KDE news
·
· Score: 1
I don't need it -> it's useless to me -> there must be an off switch for this option (either run time or compile time or both). Also, anyone who cares about privacy and security will not connect any of their PCs to any network. You can have a lowly peice of sh*t for networking and do real work offline. Floppies, zips, CDs etc. were created to facilitate info transport if you absolutely have to xfer something, but preferably leave your computers offline 100%.
Re:I'm looking forward to the day they ditch X
on
Some KDE news
·
· Score: 1
You are right about the last one, my statement was subjective and was never meant to be more than that. But let me refrase my point: if you had one server, you could hard code a good portion of your communication protocol to speed things up. I hope you do not claim that X protocol is as efficient as a pipe. When I said there'd be no reason for client server architecture, I meant precisely that the user would not have a choice of servers but one server only. Bad wording on my part, I agree. I still think that a web page stating flaws in X is necessary. You could state what you think are warts, and it could evolve in _your_ direction.
Re:I'm looking forward to the day they ditch X
on
Some KDE news
·
· Score: 1
First, I personally do not need networking and I suspect that a lot of home users (i.e. desktop users) will not need it either. Yet I cannot turn the networked architecture off and switch to something more direct and efficient and with fewer components communicating between themselves. Without networking, there's no reason to have a client-server architecture, I suspect all of stand-alone X desktop functionality can be written as one file for maximum speed and efficiency. Maybe then mere mortals could compile X without excedrin. A networked version is only good as an option. Second, I hope someone starts a page dedicated to pointing out what's wrong with X. This comes up many times over and there needs to be an up-to-date X critique. If nothing else, it'd help X evolve in the right direction.
They would still be very impact-sensitive, no matter the casing. An AFM can be quite robust if your features are a micron or larger in characteristic dimension. Magnetic domains of that kind of size are feasible if not already achieved so there's little advantage an AFM can offer here. On some AFMs you can see smaller features, even atomic steps, but such imaging requires hand calibration and great care and only works if the star alignment in the sky is just right. Carbon nanotube tips may make a difference in the future but it's hard to tell what's real and what's hype about those.
This may be hard to do. AFM's can only read so fast. The larger your outside diameter, the larger the velocity at the edges, the harder it is to read. Personally, I am not so sure this tech is feasible: dip it in hard water once and the residue will mess up your data, touch it and your fat will screw up AFM force calibration, and don't even think about scratching it in any way. This may only be feasible for sealed systems, like a wristwatch.
Wow, that was an unashamed self-promotion with only promises and no products. I mean, I know it's research project, but they don't even have a good compiler and they claim they'll be THE chips of the future. Now I know why the horrible monster called X spread around - it must be MIT flare for hype.
Re:Amiga are selling you a nice "WebTV" box. hahah
on
Amiga & Transmeta?
·
· Score: 1
The box shown is larger and has more stuff up front than some sparcstations... Besides, if all the Amiga does is reveal what Transmeta was up to and then flop, its efforts would be worth it. Granted, I never used the original Amiga and couldn't care less about the new one.
Could you please elaborate on how this (let's be specific) unzipping scheme would work. At some point someone will need to specify that unzipping or untarring needs to take place. This is not necessarily as trivial as assigning a property to a directory: consider disk spanning for zipped files.
I think it'd be better if this response never saw the light of day. As it stands it is beginning to look like Metcalfe was making a rather valid point.
Slashdot Mirror
A computer with one mouse button cannot be productive or easy to use.
Example: on a Mac there is no easy way to open a link in a new window
in Netscape. That is the single most annoying thing about any computer
hardware arrangement, short of plug and pray.
This scheme would reduce functionality of speakers in exactly the same
way as DIVX reduced functionality of DVD disks, namely you wont be able to
switch speakers between boxes. This makes this scheme very hard to sell
even if you could get the price down.
Why recompress? Compression is needed for download. .wav or .au
Presumably you already downloaded a file in MS format.
Once the file is cracked, just send the resulting
file to a CD-R and be happy. You might also want to make
an audio CD, to listen in your car or anywhere.
Again, could anyone enlighten me as to why you need to
recompress?
I think you missed the biggest concerns of all: privacy and availability.
There is no way you can trust any organization or person running the
server to keep your data private. Signing up for such a rental, your biggest
payment may be in the form of personal data. In case you did not realize
this, it is more valuable than your monthly utility bill payment. So factoring
this in, it'll probably make sense to buy most software outright, especially
things like tax software. Of course so much of the software is available for free,
that buying may be a thing of the past anyway.
In general, this idea is based on the assumption that a new sales model will
preserve old brand loyalty, which is not at all obvious to me. For example,
I regularly check CNN site for news, but I do not have a CNN channel on my local
cable. I think a shift in software sales will nudge people to rethink their software
usage. This may be very dangerous for MS.
Also, as people above have pointed out, there are times when you need software
NOW, so you cannot have a PhD thesis sitting somewhere on a server, your
defense scheduled for tomorrow and your network experiencing a brownout
or an outright failure.
I see software rental as viable only for one-time use things, like children apps,
e.g. schools would rent educational software needed for this week for this grade.
Lastly, could someone clue me in on how you rent an operating system? Does
your bios have a tcp/ip stack and downloads stuff on startup? Why is windows
being mentioned?
They sould make an encryption-decryption box, not a phone set.
That way you could run all your data securely, and it'd be much
faster than software encryption.
I kind of agree, but as people have been
saying about WinNT, it does not matter to
me what happens at the server end - I am
a user, I should not experience glitches.
Granted it is more serious for NT because
they are rebooting or crashing while with
crack machine you just have to restart your
browser, but I'd still count it as a crack.
Win2000test pages do not load. What's the deal? I thought it
was finally up. BTW, what does a root password buy you on WinNT?
If some of this is a reference to me then let me enlighten you:
a. I am extremely poor and I do not foresee making decent money
any time soon.
b. I am expressing my worldview, which is not rooted in my financial
situation. Only a Marxist pig (pardon the flame) would associate one's
views and their financial interests.
I do not know if you'd count that as contributing, but I do
pay taxes. I have a right to be all those other things.
Prisons do not have to be more expensive if you abolish
Constitutionally guaranteed rights for prisoners. Already
the second amendment does not apply in prisons, why should
any other? I have been a long time proponent of locking people
in literally four walls and no amenities of any kind. All you'd need
is to feed these people (you could bring that cost down by
standardizing rations and cutting down on expensive foods).
Prisons are not meant to be comfortable, healthy or humane,
they are meant as an extreme form of punishment.
So in essence you pay the bastards their money
because you are afraid of them. They hold you
for ransom in your own home. Quite a wimpy
attitude you got there.
I was going from the high-level approach, thinking .1% faster execution.
that every bit of flexibility has its associated
overhead. Thus, removing networking would gain me
something if only
One approach would be to compile X into
programs and to pass requests on the same stack.
I have a large HDD and can fit 20 times what is
there now, so many chunks of X code lying around
would not be a problem for me. But I agree that
this is ugly and has its own problems.
However I do not see anything wrong with using
shared memory for every last bit. It'd be faster
and could only be done locally.
Lastly, I am starting to agree with a position
that we need to move to openGL-based rendering,
or in some other way move display management into
hardware. Software is just too slow no matter
how efficient it is.
I do not live in Canada (rather US0), but
What's wrong with cutting welfare? If you ask
me, all gov'ts should immediately cease to
support any welfare or related benefits as
leeching and tell people to work or starve to
death, whichever they like more. Reducing
welfare is what Clinton's doing and it's gonna
be another century before we get all those beggars
off our backs (if ever).
I do not however support cuts in medical or
education fields (regardless of country).
Ok, enough with word games. I suggest eliminating
the IP header to reduce message size. A pipe does
not require headers, does it?
I don't need it -> it's useless to me -> there must
be an off switch for this option (either run time
or compile time or both).
Also, anyone who cares about privacy and security
will not connect any of their PCs to any network.
You can have a lowly peice of sh*t for networking
and do real work offline. Floppies, zips, CDs etc.
were created to facilitate info transport if
you absolutely have to xfer something, but
preferably leave your computers offline 100%.
You are right about the last one, my statement
was subjective and was never meant to be more
than that.
But let me refrase my point: if you had one
server, you could hard code a good portion of
your communication protocol to speed things up.
I hope you do not claim that X protocol is as
efficient as a pipe.
When I said there'd be no reason for client
server architecture, I meant precisely that
the user would not have a choice of servers but
one server only. Bad wording on my part, I agree.
I still think that a web page stating flaws
in X is necessary. You could state what you think
are warts, and it could evolve in _your_
direction.
First, I personally do not need networking and I suspect that a lot of
home users (i.e. desktop users) will not need it either. Yet I cannot
turn the networked architecture off and switch to something more
direct and efficient and with fewer components communicating between
themselves. Without networking, there's no reason to have a client-server
architecture, I suspect all of stand-alone X desktop functionality can be
written as one file for maximum speed and efficiency. Maybe then mere
mortals could compile X without excedrin. A networked version is only good
as an option.
Second, I hope someone starts a page dedicated to pointing out what's wrong
with X. This comes up many times over and there needs to be an up-to-date
X critique. If nothing else, it'd help X evolve in the right direction.
They would still be very impact-sensitive, no matter the casing.
An AFM can be quite robust if your features are a micron or larger in characteristic
dimension. Magnetic domains of that kind of size are feasible if not already achieved
so there's little advantage an AFM can offer here.
On some AFMs you can see smaller features, even atomic steps, but such imaging
requires hand calibration and great care and only works if the star alignment
in the sky is just right. Carbon nanotube tips may make a difference in the future
but it's hard to tell what's real and what's hype about those.
This may be hard to do. AFM's can only read so fast. The larger
your outside diameter, the larger the velocity at the edges,
the harder it is to read. Personally, I am not so sure this tech is
feasible: dip it in hard water once and the residue will mess up
your data, touch it and your fat will screw up AFM force calibration,
and don't even think about scratching it in any way. This may only
be feasible for sealed systems, like a wristwatch.
You can think of Win98 as a sofisticated Dos distro. Doesn't
work for NT though.
Wow, that was an unashamed self-promotion
with only promises and no products. I mean,
I know it's research project, but they don't even
have a good compiler and they claim they'll
be THE chips of the future. Now I know why the
horrible monster called X spread around - it must
be MIT flare for hype.
The box shown is larger and has more stuff up front than some
sparcstations...
Besides, if all the Amiga does is reveal what Transmeta was up to
and then flop, its efforts would be worth it. Granted, I never used
the original Amiga and couldn't care less about the new one.
Could you please elaborate on how this (let's be specific)
unzipping scheme would work. At some point someone will
need to specify that unzipping or untarring needs to take place.
This is not necessarily as trivial as assigning a property to a
directory: consider disk spanning for zipped files.
I think the point is that if KDE and Gnome cooperate,
you'll be able to run all apps with only one desktop
installed. That'd be the goal anyway.
I think it'd be better if this response
never saw the light of day. As it stands
it is beginning to look like Metcalfe was
making a rather valid point.