because some smartass decided the save option you actually want should be ^E instead of ^S.
It's open source! Changing the shortcut for Save and Export would be trivial and you could just merge your patch into your private branch on each release. What is the point of open source if this is actually a genuine complaint?
I think it's more that the excitement is gone from a lot of these projects, the work they require is maintenance and minor feature upgrades to try and keep up with the proprietary competitors - Photoshop in this instance. Developers that spend their free time doing development want to do interesting things, not mundane ones. You need a revenue stream to get developers to do the boring work done, FOSS is supposed to provide this through users paying to get features implemented and bugs fixed but this just isn't reality in the vast majority of cases so ultimately the projects stagnate and users abandon them rather than pay them.
Yeah, problem is there's just too many people that like it, so even though it is possible to fork very few distros would switch to it.
Why does an image editing program have to be bundled with the operating system? If the fork is better then people will use it, if people aren't even willing to install it separately then obviously it isn't very good.
The Apple Music player app on IOS used to be at least usable. Now I have to google to figure out how to turn shuffle on and off. Everything is obscure and hidden where it used to be at least semi obvious.
The new music app is one of the most annoying changes in iOS recently. It's down to those little things that chase aesthetics instead of usability like the alphabet scrollbar, instead of being visible immediately you actually have to start manually scrolling to make it appear and then you can use it. It's just a pointless decision that makes no sense in the context of usability.
They did a similar thing with desktop safari some time ago where the close button for the tab wasn't visible until you hovered the mouse over it, so you actually had to know where the control was before you could make it appear and use it. Again chasing aesthetics over usability.
Right, you can't come up with a valid argument but you can't admit you're wrong so that lame comeback is the best you've got. We all know there are plenty of IT workers but that doesn't in any way suggest there is some over supply of talented developers. If there were then salaries for developers would be very low, but they are in fact very high which suggests that there is a lack of talented developers. The simple concept of supply and demand is obviously way to much for you to comprehend.
All your citation says is there are a lot of people, I don't disagree with that but what I said was increase the talent pool. Tech worker salaries are very high because while there are a lot of people there are not a lot of really talented people.
It's fine for AOSP where you can see what everything does and wrap that behavior, it's a lot harder when you have programs relying on proprietary libraries like Google Play Services.
How can you be sure, the next updated version will not require.NET?
Why would you have to be? Why would it even matter at all?.Net is open anyway and even if it weren't the skills learned are still portable. You really know so little about programming that you think that the choice of language is going to create some kind of lock-in?
You think they're doing this out of the kindness of their hearts?
Of course not, they are doing this to increase the talent pool. If the general quality of CS grads and/or job applicants is low then obviously it is in their interest to try to improve that. If they can pay somebody a lot less to do your job the same as you then perhaps you aren't as valuable as you think you are, or maybe you're just in the wrong job. Either way competition is good, it drives people to become better.
Actually it's 7.9". So what they release will just be the same (stylus, larger iphones) or ever so slightly different (7.9" vs 7") from what they say they won't do.
Where does this leave a high school student who has received an iPad as a gift only to discover that it's not suitable for the programming homework that her computer science teacher has assigned?
Unable to do it on the iPad, duh. But in a position to trade it for a suitable device.
This is the usual Apple way of doing things, given that they have made a point of this you can expect them to backflip on it in the near future. Just like with large screen iPhones, 7" tablet and stylus. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that when Apple makes a lot of noise about not doing something that a competitor is doing they usually turn around shortly after and do exactly that thing.
So OpenGL is a Ferrari? What is the "Ford or GM" in your analogy? DirectX? Your post makes no sense. OpenGL is available on all the major platforms except XBox.
Let me put it this way: PS4s run FreeBSD, and they have less of a problem with graphics performance. It's definitely the drivers.
Let me put it this way: PS4s run a different operating system on different hardware with different drivers and a different graphics API. And there is no way known that that information can in any way give you any indication of what the performance problem in this situation is.
OpenGL and Linux actually rival or beat windows + directx in terms of raw capability.
Part of the issue is fragmentation. The extended capability comes from extensions in OpenGL, they are great for maximizing exploiting new features and performance of specific graphics cards but it's rarely worth the effort to produce a code path that only a tiny percentage of users might benefit from - and might ultimately be outweighed anyway by some software or hardware configuration or imbalance (CPU/RAM bottleneck for example). So most often these extensions aren't used and engine developers resort to targeting Core profiles just like DirectX versions so they have a consistent target platform.
Because they already know direct x and probably don't know opengl.
Most game developers work directly with the engine which most often has multiple rendering backends to target OpenGL (desktop and sometimes ES), DirectX (predominantly a 9, 10/11 and now 12 path), GCM, GNMX, GX and now some with Metal support too. This has the effect of both abstracting them from the low level API and enabling them to target different platforms with the same codebase. Moreover GCM, GNMX, GX are all very similar to OpenGL, targeting iOS has up until recently been only OpenGL as has Android and it is also an option for Windows. The only DirectX-exclusive platforms among all of these are XBox and Windows Phone.
Because direct x is what is primarily targeted and optimized by graphics card drivers with opengl a secondary consideration.
No, not really.
And lastly because sound is then organized into the same library whereas with opengl they would then need to pick a secondary sound library.
OpenGL is an api, it has no performance characteristics, those all come down to the implementation.
This is the same as any graphics API but the specification most definitely has performance characteristics that impact the implementation no matter who produces it. Resource and state management for example.
Microsoft has no interest in opengl performing well on windows therefore they don't expend any effort to make it perform well and thereby cripple it relative to their own library.
Microsoft doesn't cripple OpenGL, the OpenGL implementation is provided by the hardware vendors, not Microsoft. But I would be interested to see why/how you think they cripple performance of OpenGL, here is some evidence to the contrary.
The same things are profitable for all of them, if they all pursue what is most profitable for themselves the result will be all of them engaging in the same practice and screwing the consumer.
Well yes a for-profit company is supposed to act in the interest of maximizing profits for shareholders. I'm not sure what "screwing the consumer" means in this instance - you'll have to be more specific - but if it's that bad and there is a path that doesn't screw the user then as long as it can still create at least some profit then consumers will flock to it and the company will benefit. But if your view is that "screwing the consumer" == "not free of charge" then obviously this isn't compatible with for-profit companies.
It would be fixed by the users if the game engine and the graphics driver were open source.
There already are open source graphics drivers, nouveau for nVidia and the radeon drivers for ATi/AMD. There are also plenty of open source game engines and even if there weren't, users could build them. Additionally even using the SDKs for proprietary game engines and the profiling tools is more than enough to isolate performance bottlenecks. If there is a problem with the engine it isn't going to be difficult to identify where it is stalling and discuss with the author (particularly when it is Valve that has an interest in their engine running well on Linux).
Vulkan will improve the situation dramatically, since the situation has gotten so bad that the closed source people can barely manage it.
The resource management that is done currently in the OpenGL (and DirectX = 11) drivers still needs to be done but now that onus falls on the application and/or engine developer.
Gaming on a phone is a painful experience unless the phone is physically designed for it like the Nokia N-Gage (talk about a throwback).
The fact that hundreds of millions of people worldwide don't consider it a painful experience and your hero device was a spectacular failure that nobody wanted would suggest you're more than a little out of touch.
Slashdot Mirror
because some smartass decided the save option you actually want should be ^E instead of ^S.
It's open source! Changing the shortcut for Save and Export would be trivial and you could just merge your patch into your private branch on each release. What is the point of open source if this is actually a genuine complaint?
I think it's more that the excitement is gone from a lot of these projects, the work they require is maintenance and minor feature upgrades to try and keep up with the proprietary competitors - Photoshop in this instance. Developers that spend their free time doing development want to do interesting things, not mundane ones. You need a revenue stream to get developers to do the boring work done, FOSS is supposed to provide this through users paying to get features implemented and bugs fixed but this just isn't reality in the vast majority of cases so ultimately the projects stagnate and users abandon them rather than pay them.
Yeah, problem is there's just too many people that like it, so even though it is possible to fork very few distros would switch to it.
Why does an image editing program have to be bundled with the operating system? If the fork is better then people will use it, if people aren't even willing to install it separately then obviously it isn't very good.
The Apple Music player app on IOS used to be at least usable. Now I have to google to figure out how to turn shuffle on and off. Everything is obscure and hidden where it used to be at least semi obvious.
The new music app is one of the most annoying changes in iOS recently. It's down to those little things that chase aesthetics instead of usability like the alphabet scrollbar, instead of being visible immediately you actually have to start manually scrolling to make it appear and then you can use it. It's just a pointless decision that makes no sense in the context of usability.
They did a similar thing with desktop safari some time ago where the close button for the tab wasn't visible until you hovered the mouse over it, so you actually had to know where the control was before you could make it appear and use it. Again chasing aesthetics over usability.
Well, now we know you are a shill.
Right, you can't come up with a valid argument but you can't admit you're wrong so that lame comeback is the best you've got.
We all know there are plenty of IT workers but that doesn't in any way suggest there is some over supply of talented developers. If there were then salaries for developers would be very low, but they are in fact very high which suggests that there is a lack of talented developers. The simple concept of supply and demand is obviously way to much for you to comprehend.
I know I'm right, the argument is bang on correct. If you don't like it and resort to childish namecalling that's your problem.
THERE IS NO TALENT SHORTAGE.
All your citation says is there are a lot of people, I don't disagree with that but what I said was increase the talent pool. Tech worker salaries are very high because while there are a lot of people there are not a lot of really talented people.
It's fine for AOSP where you can see what everything does and wrap that behavior, it's a lot harder when you have programs relying on proprietary libraries like Google Play Services.
I would love if there were a compat layer in Windows Phone that let it run Android apps and that the same compat layer was usable on a Win 10 desktop!
The general consensus on Windows 8 was that people did not want phone-style apps on desktops.
How can you be sure, the next updated version will not require .NET?
Why would you have to be? Why would it even matter at all? .Net is open anyway and even if it weren't the skills learned are still portable. You really know so little about programming that you think that the choice of language is going to create some kind of lock-in?
You think they're doing this out of the kindness of their hearts?
Of course not, they are doing this to increase the talent pool. If the general quality of CS grads and/or job applicants is low then obviously it is in their interest to try to improve that. If they can pay somebody a lot less to do your job the same as you then perhaps you aren't as valuable as you think you are, or maybe you're just in the wrong job. Either way competition is good, it drives people to become better.
This alone shows how stupid your argument is.
Nope.
The iPad Mini is 8"
Actually it's 7.9". So what they release will just be the same (stylus, larger iphones) or ever so slightly different (7.9" vs 7") from what they say they won't do.
Don't forget the larger iPhones.
Or the stylus.
Where does this leave a high school student who has received an iPad as a gift only to discover that it's not suitable for the programming homework that her computer science teacher has assigned?
Unable to do it on the iPad, duh. But in a position to trade it for a suitable device.
This is the usual Apple way of doing things, given that they have made a point of this you can expect them to backflip on it in the near future. Just like with large screen iPhones, 7" tablet and stylus. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that when Apple makes a lot of noise about not doing something that a competitor is doing they usually turn around shortly after and do exactly that thing.
So OpenGL is a Ferrari? What is the "Ford or GM" in your analogy? DirectX? Your post makes no sense. OpenGL is available on all the major platforms except XBox.
Or is is actually a problem with OS itself?
Let me put it this way: PS4s run FreeBSD, and they have less of a problem with graphics performance. It's definitely the drivers.
Let me put it this way: PS4s run a different operating system on different hardware with different drivers and a different graphics API. And there is no way known that that information can in any way give you any indication of what the performance problem in this situation is.
The games aren't slow. The OS isn't slow. It's the graphics drivers.
No, it is a combination of all of those things as has been explained many times before. Like here for instance.
To be fair, SLI is a massive failure on Windows too.
No it isn't.
It's a real crapshoot that very few games support and even fewer support well.
No, games don't need to "support" it.
Steam OS performance may be worse than Windows 10 performance in some games on certain hardware configurations.
This is exactly the sort of thing that gamers shouldn't have to worry about.
OpenGL and Linux actually rival or beat windows + directx in terms of raw capability.
Part of the issue is fragmentation. The extended capability comes from extensions in OpenGL, they are great for maximizing exploiting new features and performance of specific graphics cards but it's rarely worth the effort to produce a code path that only a tiny percentage of users might benefit from - and might ultimately be outweighed anyway by some software or hardware configuration or imbalance (CPU/RAM bottleneck for example). So most often these extensions aren't used and engine developers resort to targeting Core profiles just like DirectX versions so they have a consistent target platform.
Because they already know direct x and probably don't know opengl.
Most game developers work directly with the engine which most often has multiple rendering backends to target OpenGL (desktop and sometimes ES), DirectX (predominantly a 9, 10/11 and now 12 path), GCM, GNMX, GX and now some with Metal support too. This has the effect of both abstracting them from the low level API and enabling them to target different platforms with the same codebase. Moreover GCM, GNMX, GX are all very similar to OpenGL, targeting iOS has up until recently been only OpenGL as has Android and it is also an option for Windows. The only DirectX-exclusive platforms among all of these are XBox and Windows Phone.
Because direct x is what is primarily targeted and optimized by graphics card drivers with opengl a secondary consideration.
No, not really.
And lastly because sound is then organized into the same library whereas with opengl they would then need to pick a secondary sound library.
Easy choice, OpenAL. Not really a barrier.
OpenGL is an api, it has no performance characteristics, those all come down to the implementation.
This is the same as any graphics API but the specification most definitely has performance characteristics that impact the implementation no matter who produces it. Resource and state management for example.
Microsoft has no interest in opengl performing well on windows therefore they don't expend any effort to make it perform well and thereby cripple it relative to their own library.
Microsoft doesn't cripple OpenGL, the OpenGL implementation is provided by the hardware vendors, not Microsoft. But I would be interested to see why/how you think they cripple performance of OpenGL, here is some evidence to the contrary.
The same things are profitable for all of them, if they all pursue what is most profitable for themselves the result will be all of them engaging in the same practice and screwing the consumer.
Well yes a for-profit company is supposed to act in the interest of maximizing profits for shareholders. I'm not sure what "screwing the consumer" means in this instance - you'll have to be more specific - but if it's that bad and there is a path that doesn't screw the user then as long as it can still create at least some profit then consumers will flock to it and the company will benefit. But if your view is that "screwing the consumer" == "not free of charge" then obviously this isn't compatible with for-profit companies.
It would be fixed by the users if the game engine and the graphics driver were open source.
There already are open source graphics drivers, nouveau for nVidia and the radeon drivers for ATi/AMD. There are also plenty of open source game engines and even if there weren't, users could build them. Additionally even using the SDKs for proprietary game engines and the profiling tools is more than enough to isolate performance bottlenecks. If there is a problem with the engine it isn't going to be difficult to identify where it is stalling and discuss with the author (particularly when it is Valve that has an interest in their engine running well on Linux).
Vulkan will improve the situation dramatically, since the situation has gotten so bad that the closed source people can barely manage it.
The resource management that is done currently in the OpenGL (and DirectX = 11) drivers still needs to be done but now that onus falls on the application and/or engine developer.
Gaming on a phone is a painful experience unless the phone is physically designed for it like the Nokia N-Gage (talk about a throwback).
The fact that hundreds of millions of people worldwide don't consider it a painful experience and your hero device was a spectacular failure that nobody wanted would suggest you're more than a little out of touch.
If they're actually bugs then perhaps the community should submit fixes (or fund fixes).