Older versions of Qt implemented its own widgets, which emulated the look and feel of native widgets, but did not match exactly.
Microsoft has multiple implementations of "native widgets", and they don't all work quite the same way. They are also not created the same way, and components using them don't always interoperate well with each other. Microsoft themselves have this problem... when Microsoft adds new controls, they get implemented in one toolkit first, then copied elsewhere, to greater or less fidelity, because they can't just import one implementation.
You don't seem to have any problems with the fact that on Linux there's "so many [toolkits] to choose from".
The article I was responding to was presenting this as a problem you have if you use Linux rather than Windows, implying that you somehow automatically avoid it by using Windows. My point is that you don't avoid it, and the solution to the problem is the same as on Linux - discipline.
You just choose Qt. And you can do the same thing on Windows
Um, yes, I know, I already SAID that.
The advantage on Linux is that picking the look and feel picks the toolkit, so when you standardize on something management understands you get compatibility at the API layer for free.
In recent versions at least, Qt in Windows works by using the Windows native APIs.
What do you EXPECT it to use? Telepathy? Voodoo? Hack the kernel and the graphics card to try and find a frame buffer? Pass OpenGL in through a backdoor in Windows Media Player? INT 21h and ANSI.SYS??
you're arguing that using the native GUI APIs in Windows is difficult
Actually, what I was pointing out was that Microsoft has created many conflicting GUI APIs on top of GDI and Win32. Possibly not as many as a hundred independent development groups have created on top of Xlib, but way too many to avoid falling into the same trap. I'm sure that many of the Windows APIs are good, but there's so many to choose from, and the practical result is that if you don't apply the same discipline on your Windows teams as you apply on your UNIX teams you end up with much the same problem.
then you admit...
That wasn't an "admission", mister bones, that was my thesis.
There were some very good PGP support E-mail programs
Unless you could use it from Groupwise or Lotus or whatever so that EVERYONE could use it, it doesn't matter if there's some boutique standalone programs that support it.
I wrote: In the job I described above, all the code was written for Qt
I'm referring to our group's code here, not the code from other groups we had to glue together with VBscript.
The UNIX code from other groups was not a problem.
If you have difficulty with conflicting libraries, don't blame the OS, blame your development model. Yes, if we had one group using Gtk and one using Qt we'd be in trouble, but no more than if one group was using.NET and another Win32.
you don't need to figure out each library there is in system and resolve conflicts by n+1 applications
You don't need to do that in UNIX platforms either, but you DO in Windows. I've worked in a Windows shop supporting a product that had to run on Windows and multiple versions of Linux. All the Linux software used one common library, and worked well together. The Windows applications used different Windows APIs (all APIs from Microsoft, mind you) and had to be glued together with VBScript wrappers.
development environment is more mature and functional in Windows [...] user interfaces with GUI are much simpler to explain and they are much easier to create for Windows, partly due to development tools [...] GUI also reduces need for user training for non-technical people
I've, multiple times, completed development of a Tk-based GUI *application* while the Windows guys were still messing around with mockups of the *look and feel*. In the job I described above, all the code was written for Qt, on Windows and UNIX, because it was simpler, cleaner, and more reliable than the conflicting Windows APIs.
Implementing communication layers "out of the box" is not nearly as common a problem, particularly in real embedded systems (it's not all Linux vs Windows). And it's often even easier than dealing with dozens of different (and often conflicting, as well as poorly documented) APIs... I've seen companies spend as much work creating a layer to run third party components under (and then pushing to make their layer an industry standard) as they would have writing the usually very simple protocols themselves. Even Microsoft reimplements stuff out of the box over and over again... which is why there's so many inconsistencies in different applications on Vista: these applications are all built for different Microsoft GUI libraries, and so they had to implement the Vista UI elements over and over again... and didn't get it right.
You're complaining about shortcomings in implementation. That's a general problem with crypto... crypto geeks don't care about iser interfaces. RSA goes back to 1977, and we still don't have good PGP/GPG support in most email clients. The solution is not to invent a new protocol, it's to invent a new user interface that's compellingly easy. SSL is a pain in the neck... except when you're using it in a web browser it's almost invisible, and SSH bootstraps from it to make something that's much easier to set up than SSL telnet.
Yes, Crypto Barbie, if TPB doesn't at least make it possible to use IPSEC as the encryption layer (whether they have a workaround for ISPs that block IPSEC or not) they're not part of the solution.
There's been people complaining about people blocking their mail because they're coming from GMail for some weeks now, and according to BOFHs I know this isn't just clueless admins... GMail's got spam problems.
They don't seem to be responding to queries about it either.
Need to apply some holy water in that part of Google, seems like there's some evil leaking in.
The iPhone and iPod touch are so cool that we just put up with everything that Apple does and be happy little developers until Apple thinks we deserve to be let in, right?
Around the time that people were developing new software for Windows 3.11 they had the option of using smaller, faster, and less power-hungry operating systems like OS/9 (which had recently been re-released as OS/9000 but is now OS/9 again) and QNX had been around for over a decade.
It's not that things like real-time multitasking and POSIX compatibility were unnecessary, but rather that these features had essentially no overhead compared to the mess of already-rotting DLLs and captive DOS environments that Windows was built on.
The people who were using Windows as an embedded system were already considered dangerously careless by the hard real time community... we were dubious about using UNIX, and UNIX was an order of magnitude cleaner and more reliable than Windows 3.11.
I would rather not have a heart monitor running on Windows, thank you very much. If the products based on Windows in 1993 go off the market, because the manufacturers can't find any more certificates of authenticity in their warehouses, we'll be all the better off for it.
Friend, they're politicians. Politicians, no matter what their stripe, don't EVER say what they really believe, they say what will get them... in the end... more votes. You can't take anything they say at face value.
But by concentrating on what they said instead of what you said you're still missing the whole point of my original comment about the conservative bias of the media.
I have to go through the logs to find the hole. So now it's down to me to prove that I didn't *intend* to find out who the phisher was. That's a real fine point I'd on the whole rather not have to stand on, thanks.
if I were to return from vacation and find my place had been cleaned out, I wouldn't go off investigating it myself either but would call the police.
If I were to return from vacation to find that someone had knocked a ball through my upstairs window, I'd call a glazier. By your logic he'd have to be licensed as a PI.
I'm saying that the Democrats wonder why people have such animosity towards them on the right
They do?
I thought they were politicians. Any politician who doesn't understand why people who disagree with them might have animosity towards them won't be in politics very long.
Your point is what, then, that you don't understand politics? Or at least you don't seem to understand my point?
I understand that the original law was probably to only apply to certain kinds of businesses, but that's not how it's written. Even the guy who wrote the bill says it's broader than that.
The most obvious example is people supporting websites. Compromising a website is breaking the law. Requiring that a private individual maintaining a website be a PI before he can go in and remove a phishing page that some guy has dropped on his site, let alone fix the problem, seems a bit rough to me... but that's exactly the kind of activity the law covers.
I guess you don't know what the term "phishing" refers to, because what I described finding is exactly what I described looking for: a phishing web page.
According to this bill, if you believe that your website or a website you support has been compromised, you are not legally allowed to investigate that compromise because the compromise itself is a crime, and even looking to see how it happened so you can prevent it from happening again requires a PI license under the bill.
Slashdot Mirror
Older versions of Qt implemented its own widgets, which emulated the look and feel of native widgets, but did not match exactly.
Microsoft has multiple implementations of "native widgets", and they don't all work quite the same way. They are also not created the same way, and components using them don't always interoperate well with each other. Microsoft themselves have this problem... when Microsoft adds new controls, they get implemented in one toolkit first, then copied elsewhere, to greater or less fidelity, because they can't just import one implementation.
You don't seem to have any problems with the fact that on Linux there's "so many [toolkits] to choose from".
The article I was responding to was presenting this as a problem you have if you use Linux rather than Windows, implying that you somehow automatically avoid it by using Windows. My point is that you don't avoid it, and the solution to the problem is the same as on Linux - discipline.
You just choose Qt. And you can do the same thing on Windows
Um, yes, I know, I already SAID that.
The advantage on Linux is that picking the look and feel picks the toolkit, so when you standardize on something management understands you get compatibility at the API layer for free.
In recent versions at least, Qt in Windows works by using the Windows native APIs.
What do you EXPECT it to use? Telepathy? Voodoo? Hack the kernel and the graphics card to try and find a frame buffer? Pass OpenGL in through a backdoor in Windows Media Player? INT 21h and ANSI.SYS??
you're arguing that using the native GUI APIs in Windows is difficult
Actually, what I was pointing out was that Microsoft has created many conflicting GUI APIs on top of GDI and Win32. Possibly not as many as a hundred independent development groups have created on top of Xlib, but way too many to avoid falling into the same trap. I'm sure that many of the Windows APIs are good, but there's so many to choose from, and the practical result is that if you don't apply the same discipline on your Windows teams as you apply on your UNIX teams you end up with much the same problem.
then you admit...
That wasn't an "admission", mister bones, that was my thesis.
I do not believe IPSEC requires working DNS, because I have set up IPSEC tunnels without it. You don't even need working DNS for key exchange.
There were some very good PGP support E-mail programs
Unless you could use it from Groupwise or Lotus or whatever so that EVERYONE could use it, it doesn't matter if there's some boutique standalone programs that support it.
I wrote: In the job I described above, all the code was written for Qt
I'm referring to our group's code here, not the code from other groups we had to glue together with VBscript.
The UNIX code from other groups was not a problem.
If you have difficulty with conflicting libraries, don't blame the OS, blame your development model. Yes, if we had one group using Gtk and one using Qt we'd be in trouble, but no more than if one group was using .NET and another Win32.
you don't need to figure out each library there is in system and resolve conflicts by n+1 applications
You don't need to do that in UNIX platforms either, but you DO in Windows. I've worked in a Windows shop supporting a product that had to run on Windows and multiple versions of Linux. All the Linux software used one common library, and worked well together. The Windows applications used different Windows APIs (all APIs from Microsoft, mind you) and had to be glued together with VBScript wrappers.
development environment is more mature and functional in Windows [...] user interfaces with GUI are much simpler to explain and they are much easier to create for Windows, partly due to development tools [...] GUI also reduces need for user training for non-technical people
I've, multiple times, completed development of a Tk-based GUI *application* while the Windows guys were still messing around with mockups of the *look and feel*. In the job I described above, all the code was written for Qt, on Windows and UNIX, because it was simpler, cleaner, and more reliable than the conflicting Windows APIs.
Implementing communication layers "out of the box" is not nearly as common a problem, particularly in real embedded systems (it's not all Linux vs Windows). And it's often even easier than dealing with dozens of different (and often conflicting, as well as poorly documented) APIs... I've seen companies spend as much work creating a layer to run third party components under (and then pushing to make their layer an industry standard) as they would have writing the usually very simple protocols themselves. Even Microsoft reimplements stuff out of the box over and over again... which is why there's so many inconsistencies in different applications on Vista: these applications are all built for different Microsoft GUI libraries, and so they had to implement the Vista UI elements over and over again... and didn't get it right.
If they removed an advertised capability without notice, that's deceitful and arguably fraudulent, though probably not illegal. :)
There you go then, that's glory for you!
I wonder if it would be possible to OEDhack "wakalix" in?
Google says "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,570 for wakalix."
I'd have thought it would be more, after all Google only reports about 1,200 for verbogeny.
You're complaining about shortcomings in implementation. That's a general problem with crypto... crypto geeks don't care about iser interfaces. RSA goes back to 1977, and we still don't have good PGP/GPG support in most email clients. The solution is not to invent a new protocol, it's to invent a new user interface that's compellingly easy. SSL is a pain in the neck... except when you're using it in a web browser it's almost invisible, and SSH bootstraps from it to make something that's much easier to set up than SSL telnet.
Yes, Crypto Barbie, if TPB doesn't at least make it possible to use IPSEC as the encryption layer (whether they have a workaround for ISPs that block IPSEC or not) they're not part of the solution.
There's been people complaining about people blocking their mail because they're coming from GMail for some weeks now, and according to BOFHs I know this isn't just clueless admins... GMail's got spam problems.
They don't seem to be responding to queries about it either.
Need to apply some holy water in that part of Google, seems like there's some evil leaking in.
Isn't perpendicular recording already being commonly used? I thought I recalled seeing articles and even ads about it years ago.
The iPhone and iPod touch are so cool that we just put up with everything that Apple does and be happy little developers until Apple thinks we deserve to be let in, right?
Speak for yourself, Kemosabe.
In honor of Richard Feynman, who can not have too many honors, I suggest waklixery.
The companies that use Microsoft have already drunk the coolaid, and will not recover.
I've helped a couple of companies mop out the restroom after throwing up the Microsoft Flavorade. So recovery IS possible.
Around the time that people were developing new software for Windows 3.11 they had the option of using smaller, faster, and less power-hungry operating systems like OS/9 (which had recently been re-released as OS/9000 but is now OS/9 again) and QNX had been around for over a decade.
It's not that things like real-time multitasking and POSIX compatibility were unnecessary, but rather that these features had essentially no overhead compared to the mess of already-rotting DLLs and captive DOS environments that Windows was built on.
The people who were using Windows as an embedded system were already considered dangerously careless by the hard real time community... we were dubious about using UNIX, and UNIX was an order of magnitude cleaner and more reliable than Windows 3.11.
I would rather not have a heart monitor running on Windows, thank you very much. If the products based on Windows in 1993 go off the market, because the manufacturers can't find any more certificates of authenticity in their warehouses, we'll be all the better off for it.
Friend, they're politicians. Politicians, no matter what their stripe, don't EVER say what they really believe, they say what will get them... in the end... more votes. You can't take anything they say at face value.
But by concentrating on what they said instead of what you said you're still missing the whole point of my original comment about the conservative bias of the media.
"A verbal contract. I like it!"
Well, it pissed off the judge. That hasn't been good for their case.
It's electricity^Winternet that's too cheap to meter!
Oh, wait, I already have that.
I have to go through the logs to find the hole. So now it's down to me to prove that I didn't *intend* to find out who the phisher was. That's a real fine point I'd on the whole rather not have to stand on, thanks.
if I were to return from vacation and find my place had been cleaned out, I wouldn't go off investigating it myself either but would call the police.
If I were to return from vacation to find that someone had knocked a ball through my upstairs window, I'd call a glazier. By your logic he'd have to be licensed as a PI.
I'm saying that the Democrats wonder why people have such animosity towards them on the right
They do?
I thought they were politicians. Any politician who doesn't understand why people who disagree with them might have animosity towards them won't be in politics very long.
Your point is what, then, that you don't understand politics? Or at least you don't seem to understand my point?
Follow the links and read the law yourself.
I understand that the original law was probably to only apply to certain kinds of businesses, but that's not how it's written. Even the guy who wrote the bill says it's broader than that.
The most obvious example is people supporting websites. Compromising a website is breaking the law. Requiring that a private individual maintaining a website be a PI before he can go in and remove a phishing page that some guy has dropped on his site, let alone fix the problem, seems a bit rough to me... but that's exactly the kind of activity the law covers.
I guess you don't know what the term "phishing" refers to, because what I described finding is exactly what I described looking for: a phishing web page.
According to this bill, if you believe that your website or a website you support has been compromised, you are not legally allowed to investigate that compromise because the compromise itself is a crime, and even looking to see how it happened so you can prevent it from happening again requires a PI license under the bill.
According to the guy who wrote that bill, if you "analyze" the data, you're on the hook.