Did you even bother to find out the views of the original poster about Napster? The original poster might vehemently protest against piracy via Napster--or maybe not. But I'm betting you had no idea when you posted your diatribe.
Quite frankly, if anything I wrote is there, they can have it--it won't help me anymore, and if someone is stupid enough to use any paper of mine, that's their fault.:^) Plus, this would essentially be plagarism, and if the person in question were caught, then, again, that's their fault. If they're stupid enough to cheat instead of actually working for their grade, more power to 'em--we'll see how long they last in the real world.
Yeah, but keep in mind that those folks who just *have* to have those chunks fly correctly when they blow an arm off some digital character are helping drive down prices on 3d graphics hardware.
OK, this thread is really old, so no-one will probably read this. Oh well.:^(
> fuck you're dumb
Swearing and bold statements are usually the hallmarks of stupidity.
> a) you and all the people who think Win9x runs over DOS, or is a shell/GUI on top of DOS have absolutely no clue how DOS works, and how it's different from every other OS. You also have no idea what the definition of an Operating System is.
Partially true. Win9x replaces (for themost part) DOS calls (although not always! You're too absolute here!). Also, by some definitions of what an Operating System is (there's more than one) DOS is not an operating system. Neither is Windows (despite its 99.9% OS status.)
Also, I'm sure you have your DOS and Win32 API manuals handy (I have the former somewhere or other...:^)
>b) wtf do you think NT/W2K are? Lots of things I'm sure, but one thing the NT kernel isn't is DOS based.
NT/W2K are from a different source tree. NT was originally intended to run on several different pieces of hardware; not just x86, but, originally, also Alpha, MIPS, and when it was announced, PPC. (gasp!) So, no, NT most definitely is *not* DOS-based. Win9x DOES require DOS to boot, though.
>c) Win32 originated on NT. Win9x runs Win32c, and Win3.x runs Win32s - both are subsets of Win32. To implement Win32 would require emulating NT.
Yeah, and Win3.x originated with OS/2, also. You don't have to emulate OS/2 to emulate Win32, though. Win32s was just a kludge to run 32-bit apps under 16-bit DOS-based Windows.
OK, the best way to think of it is that Win16 and the Win9x/ME branch of Windows is a 32-bit DOS extender with a built-in GUI. It needs DOS to start up; sometimes it uses DOS drivers (I used to have to do this with an old CD-ROM drive. That sucks...) It takes the lead, and has little in common with DOS, but it still has DOS there.
I don't know; I'm a little nervous about keeping my eggs in one basket like that. I mean, it has its advantages (out of room to install Descent2 for Linux? Clean out the/dos/windows/temp directory. And vice versa. But that's also the danger. And what about if your FAT32 partition gets badly corrupted?
Perhaps it really *is* time to start considering Linux as a desktop OS...or, if not, getting to work on an alternative.
Some of that memory usage you see in, say, top is actually video memory ram. The more video ram you have, the greater the apparent usage because X maps it all and then some. So, on my system, 16MB of the reported 64(!)MB used is actually video ram. (BTW, my system has 64MB ram...I'd like to know how Win4Lin starts up so flawlessly, with as little swapping as it does, if all my system memory is eaten up by X.:^)
I interpreted that as Linux having the advantage that it's not specifically designed to have a tiny memory footprint...but it can if you want it to.:^)
Quite frankly, the only thing that keeps dosemu from running Win9x is the lack of Ring 0 support, and products such as VMWare get around that by hooking into the kernel BIG HINT BIG HINT BIG HINT!!!
Heh, I'm typing this comment under IE4 under Win98 running on Win4Lin. And, guess what? It's a violation of the EULA.
Thanks to the way Win98 is licensed, I can only install *one* copy of Win98 on *one* machine. My current plan is to trash my current machine in a couple of months and use my current copy on my next machine; no need to buy another licens for the same product, right? Guess what? Violation of EULA. And, folks, the same applies to *you* if you have Win98 installed on a partition and you install it on a virtual drive via VMWare, it's a violation of the EULA.
Even worse, if I connect to my Win98 machine from work using VNC, it's a violation of the EULA. Ditto if I run VMWare or Win4Lin at home and display it on an X server elsewhere. No using Win98 over a network is allowed. I remember watching two guys laugh over fighting for the mouse pointer; one was running Win95 on one machine and the other was connected via VNC. Well, that's a violation of the EULA since they were using one copy concurrently on two machines.
So, hell *yes* an open Windows project is desirable. Windows is a halfway-decent product (I hate to admit:^) but their bass-ackwards licensing does little more than stifle innovation.
Seriously, I agree. Some of Bruce's silliness is needed on this show. It's perfect for him; he'd probably make a better Mulder than Duchovny does. Hell, the Mulder part always seemed a bit wussy to me, considering how ballsy he acted all the time.
As the QPL stands, and the fact that Qt is licensed under the QPL, one can see in the QPL that permission for linking *is* given, under conditions. I *strongly* agree with RMS on this; the authors of KDE/other GPL'ed Qt-based software have clearly intended to link against QPL software and therefor waive rights to certain freedoms granted under the GPL (specifically, the right to charge for the act of distribution of binaries/source.)
However, although IANAL, I also see how this logic can be used to completely invalidate Debian's argument. After all, the code in question (code used from other GPLed projects) is, in fact, GPLed. This code is being put into GPLed software. I see the fact that the derived code being placed under stricter licensing conditions as being a moot point. In granting freedoms to the programmer, the GPL also takes away certain freedoms, such as protecting one's source as vigorously as a closed-source project would be.
So, in short, the original authors gave *implied* permission for their code to be used in other projects. While I realize that this argument could be made (weakly) for including source in closed-source projects, please keep in mind that the derived code is still GPLed.
Hooray for you! You get a cookie. I have no need for a firewall. I don't care. My Linux machine functions as a desktop machine. Windows on my machine functions as a Playstation(TM) that'll only run for a few hours at a time without crashing (even while left alone; I think Microsoft must have helped push for EnergyStar stuff just so their operating system seemed more stable than it is.) There are very few things that I do that can't be done on Linux. Oh, sure, if I do any graphics design stuff, I have to use Windows. Better yet, a Mac.:^) But, hey, that's because good software doesn't exist for this (yet) on a Linux machine. Why wish for it on a linux machine at all? Hey, I can put my Linux box under a *severe* load and it still *works*! I can set settings as root and only anyone with root access can change the settings. Recently, at the newspaper I work at, someone lamented that it'd sure be nice to be able to lock all the settings somehow, since people kept screwing up monitor gamma correction, TCP/IP settings (we co-op with our local cable company for cablemodem access; if the settings get screwed up, we screw up everyone's cablemodem access), printer settings, etc. Windows has the same problem, unless NT is anywhere close to this. Viruses? Bah! In short, we'd like linux to be functional for just about any job mainly because of stability and security issues.
Re:Postscript more widely used in print houses
on
From Paper To PDF?
·
· Score: 1
Gee, the paper I work for uses PostScript for negative-making (the negatives are used to make printing plates) yet we get AP AdSend ads all the time, as well as PDFs from other sources.
How do we use them? Well, we can do a number of things: 1.) Use Adobe Acrobat to export eps's. 2.) Use QuarxXPress 4.x+ and import the PDF as an image file.
The paper I work for also does job printing; we print a number of papers for a few small towns. We get the pages sent to us on a 250MB Zip disk as PDF's. Most of the time we don't even have to convert them. How? Well, our negative maker (or imagesetter) is really a combination of a dedicated "printer" unit and a Power Mac. The Mac handles some of the conversions necessary; our OPI server can actually make 4-color separations of PDFs automatically.
Yes, PostScript is the standard. But, hey, when something doesn't come in as a PostScript file, you convert. Either that, or you don't get paid to do the job, and your competition does so for you.
Mr Gates, we're not fooled by the "Ambien" moniker. Stop it. Simply trying to put a spin on the ideas of open source software won't work. What gave you away, you ask? One thing was the wording of your comment. The other was the 1984 quote.:^)
OK, seriously, you're probably not Bill G., but what you say sounds a lot like things that Gates has said in the past. So, here's my own take on your comments:
>People could steal unique ideas, and use them in their own product.
True. Competitors can also reverse-engineer machine code (machine-code obsfucation only goes so far...it's undoable and just bloats and slows down code) as well. However, quite frankly, if your "product" were released under the GPL, then the software would be released under a highly restrictive, yet publicly-owned, license. Your code couldn't (legally; there's a problem in and of itself) be used in a closed-source product. Period. And anyone re-releasing your code in another "product" would have to (for legal reasons) release their source as well.
I was recently shopping in a local Wal-Mart (mecca of the midwest) and saw a boxed copy of Linux Mandrake 7.0. I think it's on par with Windows 98, if not NT, in some respects; it's superior in other respects. I mean, you get an OS with free development tools, an easy-to-use GUI (KDE), an easy graphical install (a trained monkey could do it) and such nice features as auto-configuring of hardware and autodetecting of new hardware upon boot. Sure, Mandrakesoft hasn't developed all this software on their own, and what they have developed has gone into their competitors' products. They take from other distros, as well. Who benefits? Everyone, from their competitors to the consumers such as myself.
Bruce Perens probably has some thoughts on keeping track of abuses of the GPL; he's found several cases of closed-source software with his code in it.
It would eliminate the cost of reverse engineering if the source were opened.
The cost of reverse engineering would also be eliminated if they were to open the API. This would still give them a margin of safety. Look how long it's taken GNUstep to get as far as it has even with a fully documented API. And now, GNUstep has t oconten with the new MacOS X routines (now that OpenStep is in effect MacOS.)
The other side of this is that if Adobe were to open it's development of products such as Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, etc. then they wouldn't have to charge NEARLY as much becuause, if the public deemed these to be good projects to contribute to, you could have a LARGE base of developers developing these products mainly because they *want* to, not a smaller group, getting paid big bucks, and most likely also getting overtime, developing for at least 60 if not more hours a week because they HAVE to.
Of course, what do I know. I've just watched the development of software such as The GIMP, Sketch, and heck, even KDE and GNOME and watched them thrive in a non-corporate (even mostly non-pay!) environment.
And even if it weren't a joke, the original post was *about a bootlog*. I personally don't care about the bootlog; I think it was dumb to post the original story (but you know what opinions are like...everyone's got one.:^)
So, moderators: how is posting a bootlog on a story about bootlogs off topic?
What I find revolutionary behind the thinking of Linux is that one doesn't have to reinvent the wheel to implement new ideas.
During the 80's, nearly every new piece of hardware had a new OS (well, not the Atari ST...it had a kinda-sorta DOS on the M68K, which is weird, with GEM running on top of it.) The same seems to be true even today.
Some folks used to complain about the then monolithic nature of the Linux kernel. My big complaint about most *desktop* OSs is that they *act* as if they're monolithic. Even BeOS commits this unpardonable sin. Gee, did something cause an overflow in the GUI code? Gee, that's too bad; that took down the whole system. Contrast that with my setup of running Linux Mandrake 7.0, running Window Maker and a slew of tools on X11R6. Gee, did something lock up X? X has gotten stable enough (with my graphics card, at least) that usually a Ctrl-Alt-Backspace restarts X.
A number of other services on my Linux system are user space. Some folks think this an antiquated idea from the past. I think it to be a necessary step toward stability. Hrm, did something happen to Samba? Guess I'll restart it (made all the easier with Sys V-style init) and see what's going on. Some other service crash? Oh good; it didn't take the system down. On my Win98 machine, for some reason, the print spooler randomly causes a GPF when the printer abstraction layer interfaces with the printer (is that how it works? Lemme know if not...). WHY does the printer driver take down the entire system??? I have found the same to be true in MacOS and BeOS, too...anyone with other OSs care to comment?
Ahhh...no, don't have a CoCo, but I *do* have an old 1000 EX (cruddy, not as open...and my old DOS 2.11 disk still works. No one should need more than 360k to store their data.:^)
Along with the old 1000 EX I have an old DMP 130 printer (don't ya love how Tandy turns acronyms into model numbers?) The manual for the printer had nearly EVERYTHING you ever needed to know about the printer. My current HP? The manual might as well be a single sheet with the words "Magic Happens. Send it back if it's broke.":^( If it weren't for companies so busy trying to protect trade secrets, we wouldn't have this problem. I suppose companies like IBM can't be blamed too severely for this attitude; my old DMP 130 rarely got switched to native mode, instead staying in ProPrinter mode. Most folks using ProPrinter drivers on their PCs, I daresay, didn't have an IBM ProPrinter.:^)
I just wonder what would have happened if we had had the distribution power of a deregulated Internet just, say, five years earlier when computer components were more thoroughly (or at least openly) documented. We might have had a GPLed OS, freely available, a lot sooner.
A lot of folks credit Microsoft for taking away the need for hacking your own drivers, your own interfaces for hardware. IMHO, that's just a spin of the opinion that Microsoft has pushed hardware manufacturers to produce drivers for hardware rather than documenting interfaces. Yeah, the pre-Windows DOS world was a mess. But for folks who want to use OSs like Linux, and run head-first into undocumented hardware, it's a pain.
Not all that impressive when you consider how it works (although I've not looked at the code; someone correct me if I'm wrong:^)
Java abstracts color models for portability. (Could be worded better, I know; I took English so I could write good!;^) It's possible to use an RGBA color model. I'm sure that's how it's done. Looks impressive as hell; it's probably several degrees easier to do this in WeirdX than it is in XFree.:^(
Slashdot Mirror
Did you even bother to find out the views of the original poster about Napster? The original poster might vehemently protest against piracy via Napster--or maybe not. But I'm betting you had no idea when you posted your diatribe.
:^) Plus, this would essentially be plagarism, and if the person in question were caught, then, again, that's their fault. If they're stupid enough to cheat instead of actually working for their grade, more power to 'em--we'll see how long they last in the real world.
Quite frankly, if anything I wrote is there, they can have it--it won't help me anymore, and if someone is stupid enough to use any paper of mine, that's their fault.
Yeah, but keep in mind that those folks who just *have* to have those chunks fly correctly when they blow an arm off some digital character are helping drive down prices on 3d graphics hardware.
OK, this thread is really old, so no-one will probably read this. Oh well. :^(
> fuck you're dumb
Swearing and bold statements are usually the hallmarks of stupidity.
> a) you and all the people who think Win9x runs over DOS, or is a shell/GUI on top of DOS have absolutely no clue how DOS works,
and how it's different from every other OS. You also have no idea what the definition of an Operating System is.
Partially true. Win9x replaces (for themost part) DOS calls (although not always! You're too absolute here!). Also, by some definitions of what an Operating System is (there's more than one) DOS is not an operating system. Neither is Windows (despite its 99.9% OS status.)
Also, I'm sure you have your DOS and Win32 API manuals handy (I have the former somewhere or other...:^)
>b) wtf do you think NT/W2K are? Lots of things I'm sure, but one thing the NT kernel isn't is DOS based.
NT/W2K are from a different source tree. NT was originally intended to run on several different pieces of hardware; not just x86, but, originally, also Alpha, MIPS, and when it was announced, PPC. (gasp!) So, no, NT most definitely is *not* DOS-based. Win9x DOES require DOS to boot, though.
>c) Win32 originated on NT. Win9x runs Win32c, and Win3.x runs Win32s - both are subsets of Win32. To implement Win32 would require emulating NT.
Yeah, and Win3.x originated with OS/2, also. You don't have to emulate OS/2 to emulate Win32, though. Win32s was just a kludge to run 32-bit apps under 16-bit DOS-based Windows.
OK, the best way to think of it is that Win16 and the Win9x/ME branch of Windows is a 32-bit DOS extender with a built-in GUI. It needs DOS to start up; sometimes it uses DOS drivers (I used to have to do this with an old CD-ROM drive. That sucks...) It takes the lead, and has little in common with DOS, but it still has DOS there.
I don't know; I'm a little nervous about keeping my eggs in one basket like that. I mean, it has its advantages (out of room to install Descent2 for Linux? Clean out the /dos/windows/temp directory. And vice versa. But that's also the danger. And what about if your FAT32 partition gets badly corrupted?
Perhaps it really *is* time to start considering Linux as a desktop OS...or, if not, getting to work on an alternative.
Some of that memory usage you see in, say, top is actually video memory ram. The more video ram you have, the greater the apparent usage because X maps it all and then some. So, on my system, 16MB of the reported 64(!)MB used is actually video ram. (BTW, my system has 64MB ram...I'd like to know how Win4Lin starts up so flawlessly, with as little swapping as it does, if all my system memory is eaten up by X. :^)
I interpreted that as Linux having the advantage that it's not specifically designed to have a tiny memory footprint...but it can if you want it to. :^)
Yeah...
Quite frankly, the only thing that keeps dosemu from running Win9x is the lack of Ring 0 support, and products such as VMWare get around that by hooking into the kernel BIG HINT BIG HINT BIG HINT!!!
Heh, I'm typing this comment under IE4 under Win98 running on Win4Lin. And, guess what? It's a violation of the EULA.
:^) but their bass-ackwards licensing does little more than stifle innovation.
Thanks to the way Win98 is licensed, I can only install *one* copy of Win98 on *one* machine. My current plan is to trash my current machine in a couple of months and use my current copy on my next machine; no need to buy another licens for the same product, right? Guess what? Violation of EULA. And, folks, the same applies to *you* if you have Win98 installed on a partition and you install it on a virtual drive via VMWare, it's a violation of the EULA.
Even worse, if I connect to my Win98 machine from work using VNC, it's a violation of the EULA. Ditto if I run VMWare or Win4Lin at home and display it on an X server elsewhere. No using Win98 over a network is allowed. I remember watching two guys laugh over fighting for the mouse pointer; one was running Win95 on one machine and the other was connected via VNC. Well, that's a violation of the EULA since they were using one copy concurrently on two machines.
So, hell *yes* an open Windows project is desirable. Windows is a halfway-decent product (I hate to admit
Stop that--no golden guns allowed.
Hehe...you said "sugar."
Seriously, I agree. Some of Bruce's silliness is needed on this show. It's perfect for him; he'd probably make a better Mulder than Duchovny does. Hell, the Mulder part always seemed a bit wussy to me, considering how ballsy he acted all the time.
As the QPL stands, and the fact that Qt is licensed under the QPL, one can see in the QPL that permission for linking *is* given, under conditions. I *strongly* agree with RMS on this; the authors of KDE/other GPL'ed Qt-based software have clearly intended to link against QPL software and therefor waive rights to certain freedoms granted under the GPL (specifically, the right to charge for the act of distribution of binaries/source.)
However, although IANAL, I also see how this logic can be used to completely invalidate Debian's argument. After all, the code in question (code used from other GPLed projects) is, in fact, GPLed. This code is being put into GPLed software. I see the fact that the derived code being placed under stricter licensing conditions as being a moot point. In granting freedoms to the programmer, the GPL also takes away certain freedoms, such as protecting one's source as vigorously as a closed-source project would be.
So, in short, the original authors gave *implied* permission for their code to be used in other projects. While I realize that this argument could be made (weakly) for including source in closed-source projects, please keep in mind that the derived code is still GPLed.
Shame, shame. My bible speaketh unto me to fear the Lord.
1. Any human of any ethnicity can be born albino.
2. Said person could conceivably train to be a ninja.
Hey, I've got an idea--seek out your local community college and take a logic course. It might help.
Yeah. And Microsoft never bought a glowing ZD review. Right. At least, there's no evidence. *chuckles*
>It is difficult to go between Illustrator and Photo Paint; just as it is to go between Photoshop andCorel Draw.
.psd's.)
Perhaps you meant going between Illustrator and Corel Draw, and Photoshop and Photo Paint.
I'm assuming, of course, you're also meaning the ability to deal with native file formats. (e.g. Illustrator documents and Photoshop
Hooray for you! You get a cookie. I have no need for a firewall. I don't care. My Linux machine functions as a desktop machine. Windows on my machine functions as a Playstation(TM) that'll only run for a few hours at a time without crashing (even while left alone; I think Microsoft must have helped push for EnergyStar stuff just so their operating system seemed more stable than it is.) There are very few things that I do that can't be done on Linux. Oh, sure, if I do any graphics design stuff, I have to use Windows. Better yet, a Mac. :^) But, hey, that's because good software doesn't exist for this (yet) on a Linux machine. Why wish for it on a linux machine at all? Hey, I can put my Linux box under a *severe* load and it still *works*! I can set settings as root and only anyone with root access can change the settings. Recently, at the newspaper I work at, someone lamented that it'd sure be nice to be able to lock all the settings somehow, since people kept screwing up monitor gamma correction, TCP/IP settings (we co-op with our local cable company for cablemodem access; if the settings get screwed up, we screw up everyone's cablemodem access), printer settings, etc. Windows has the same problem, unless NT is anywhere close to this. Viruses? Bah! In short, we'd like linux to be functional for just about any job mainly because of stability and security issues.
Gee, the paper I work for uses PostScript for negative-making (the negatives are used to make printing plates) yet we get AP AdSend ads all the time, as well as PDFs from other sources.
How do we use them? Well, we can do a number of things:
1.) Use Adobe Acrobat to export eps's.
2.) Use QuarxXPress 4.x+ and import the PDF as an image file.
The paper I work for also does job printing; we print a number of papers for a few small towns. We get the pages sent to us on a 250MB Zip disk as PDF's. Most of the time we don't even have to convert them. How? Well, our negative maker (or imagesetter) is really a combination of a dedicated "printer" unit and a Power Mac. The Mac handles some of the conversions necessary; our OPI server can actually make 4-color separations of PDFs automatically.
Yes, PostScript is the standard. But, hey, when something doesn't come in as a PostScript file, you convert. Either that, or you don't get paid to do the job, and your competition does so for you.
Mr Gates, we're not fooled by the "Ambien" moniker. Stop it. Simply trying to put a spin on the ideas of open source software won't work. What gave you away, you ask? One thing was the wording of your comment. The other was the 1984 quote. :^)
OK, seriously, you're probably not Bill G., but what you say sounds a lot like things that Gates has said in the past. So, here's my own take on your comments:
>People could steal unique ideas, and use them in their own product.
True. Competitors can also reverse-engineer machine code (machine-code obsfucation only goes so far...it's undoable and just bloats and slows down code) as well. However, quite frankly, if your "product" were released under the GPL, then the software would be released under a highly restrictive, yet publicly-owned, license. Your code couldn't (legally; there's a problem in and of itself) be used in a closed-source product. Period. And anyone re-releasing your code in another "product" would have to (for legal reasons) release their source as well.
I was recently shopping in a local Wal-Mart (mecca of the midwest) and saw a boxed copy of Linux Mandrake 7.0. I think it's on par with Windows 98, if not NT, in some respects; it's superior in other respects. I mean, you get an OS with free development tools, an easy-to-use GUI (KDE), an easy graphical install (a trained monkey could do it) and such nice features as auto-configuring of hardware and autodetecting of new hardware upon boot. Sure, Mandrakesoft hasn't developed all this software on their own, and what they have developed has gone into their competitors' products. They take from other distros, as well. Who benefits? Everyone, from their competitors to the consumers such as myself.
Bruce Perens probably has some thoughts on keeping track of abuses of the GPL; he's found several cases of closed-source software with his code in it.
It would eliminate the cost of reverse engineering if the source were opened.
The cost of reverse engineering would also be eliminated if they were to open the API. This would still give them a margin of safety. Look how long it's taken GNUstep to get as far as it has even with a fully documented API. And now, GNUstep has t oconten with the new MacOS X routines (now that OpenStep is in effect MacOS.)
The other side of this is that if Adobe were to open it's development of products such as Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, etc. then they wouldn't have to charge NEARLY as much becuause, if the public deemed these to be good projects to contribute to, you could have a LARGE base of developers developing these products mainly because they *want* to, not a smaller group, getting paid big bucks, and most likely also getting overtime, developing for at least 60 if not more hours a week because they HAVE to.
Of course, what do I know. I've just watched the development of software such as The GIMP, Sketch, and heck, even KDE and GNOME and watched them thrive in a non-corporate (even mostly non-pay!) environment.
And even if it weren't a joke, the original post was *about a bootlog*. I personally don't care about the bootlog; I think it was dumb to post the original story (but you know what opinions are like...everyone's got one. :^)
So, moderators: how is posting a bootlog on a story about bootlogs off topic?
What I find revolutionary behind the thinking of Linux is that one doesn't have to reinvent the wheel to implement new ideas.
During the 80's, nearly every new piece of hardware had a new OS (well, not the Atari ST...it had a kinda-sorta DOS on the M68K, which is weird, with GEM running on top of it.) The same seems to be true even today.
Some folks used to complain about the then monolithic nature of the Linux kernel. My big complaint about most *desktop* OSs is that they *act* as if they're monolithic. Even BeOS commits this unpardonable sin. Gee, did something cause an overflow in the GUI code? Gee, that's too bad; that took down the whole system. Contrast that with my setup of running Linux Mandrake 7.0, running Window Maker and a slew of tools on X11R6. Gee, did something lock up X? X has gotten stable enough (with my graphics card, at least) that usually a Ctrl-Alt-Backspace restarts X.
A number of other services on my Linux system are user space. Some folks think this an antiquated idea from the past. I think it to be a necessary step toward stability. Hrm, did something happen to Samba? Guess I'll restart it (made all the easier with Sys V-style init) and see what's going on. Some other service crash? Oh good; it didn't take the system down. On my Win98 machine, for some reason, the print spooler randomly causes a GPF when the printer abstraction layer interfaces with the printer (is that how it works? Lemme know if not...). WHY does the printer driver take down the entire system??? I have found the same to be true in MacOS and BeOS, too...anyone with other OSs care to comment?
Ahhh...no, don't have a CoCo, but I *do* have an old 1000 EX (cruddy, not as open...and my old DOS 2.11 disk still works. No one should need more than 360k to store their data. :^)
:^( If it weren't for companies so busy trying to protect trade secrets, we wouldn't have this problem. I suppose companies like IBM can't be blamed too severely for this attitude; my old DMP 130 rarely got switched to native mode, instead staying in ProPrinter mode. Most folks using ProPrinter drivers on their PCs, I daresay, didn't have an IBM ProPrinter. :^)
Along with the old 1000 EX I have an old DMP 130 printer (don't ya love how Tandy turns acronyms into model numbers?) The manual for the printer had nearly EVERYTHING you ever needed to know about the printer. My current HP? The manual might as well be a single sheet with the words "Magic Happens. Send it back if it's broke."
I just wonder what would have happened if we had had the distribution power of a deregulated Internet just, say, five years earlier when computer components were more thoroughly (or at least openly) documented. We might have had a GPLed OS, freely available, a lot sooner.
A lot of folks credit Microsoft for taking away the need for hacking your own drivers, your own interfaces for hardware. IMHO, that's just a spin of the opinion that Microsoft has pushed hardware manufacturers to produce drivers for hardware rather than documenting interfaces. Yeah, the pre-Windows DOS world was a mess. But for folks who want to use OSs like Linux, and run head-first into undocumented hardware, it's a pain.
Thank you for reading the original post. This is a story ABOUT WeirdX! :^P
Not all that impressive when you consider how it works (although I've not looked at the code; someone correct me if I'm wrong :^)
;^) It's possible to use an RGBA color model. I'm sure that's how it's done. Looks impressive as hell; it's probably several degrees easier to do this in WeirdX than it is in XFree. :^(
Java abstracts color models for portability. (Could be worded better, I know; I took English so I could write good!