It seems to me that Texas is supporting a conservative bias, and that is not okay with me.
But, let's be honest, US academia has over-whelming supported a strong liberal bias for years. If Texas was re-writing history to support an agenda that was more favorable to the liberal point of view, it would hardly be news.
It seems to me that the media is up-in-arms over a local government pushing a conservative agenda, but the same media is all too happy to ignore local governments that rewrite history to favor a liberal agenda.
Neil's experience reminded him that a tightly controlled ecosystem backed by a major vendor does make it easier to define best practices, set development targets, and deliver results with a minimum of chaos. There's something to be said for that."
So whatever you do, don't use open standards, open standards screw up everything. Only develop for MSIE, and other "standards" used by major corporations to embrace-extend-extinguish.
And this coming from infoworld? Why do I smell a corporate propaganda thinly veiled as some sort tech commentary?
Patent trolls are a problem for big companies that have lots of money.
Wouldn't patent trolls be a much bigger problem for small companies, without lots of money, or large patent portfolios?
A company like Microsoft can drop a $100 million on a bogus lawsuit without a second thought. But, for a small company, with assets under $1 million, that might not be so easy.
If a small company were to sue to Microsoft over a patent violation, Microsoft would find 20 patent violations with which to counter sue. No matter who is right or wrong, Microsoft would win, just due to staying power.
What is it about people who don't know what they're talking about, that makes them talk about X11?
Could you be more specific? Specifically what have I stated that makes you think I don't know what I'm talking about? Please note, I have cited white papers from people who certainly know a lot more about it than I.
I think it's sad that most people don't realize how insanely abusive the BSA really is. I'll bet most households, and small business, would have illegal software by the BSA's extortion standards.
I have set up many systems that dual boot windows and linux, in my experience, the GUI on the linux side is always much slower.
I found this post on the ubuntu forums, it explains some of the fundamental problems with the X11 architecture. It also cites a white paper which provide more detail.
404error wrote on the 13 Feb 09 at 01:52 I think that there has been a knee-jerk reaction to the original suggestion that is not necessarily founded on solid reasoning. Such a reaction is understandable, as a large, reasonably-functional piece of software should not simply be discarded without very strong motivation. And while the original post was well-intentioned, I do believe it could provide stronger arguments. While I have only modest experience programming directly in X11, I will do my best to explain why I also feel X11 should be replaced. If anyone has evidence that contradicts the following opinions, I would be most interested.
To go directly to the point, I think that the "linux desktop" needs a small, fast, fully-featured graphical backend. This backend should provide basic drawing primitives, input device event handling, network transparency, but should not involve itself with higher-level graphical interface design (like buttons and menus). So far, I suspect that most of the above posters would agree with this notion. Here is where we diverge: I do not think that X11 is small, fast, or fully-featured. And I think that there are fundamental aspects of the X11 protocol which will prevent any implementation from working well.
The first fundamental problem is that X11 is implemented using an asynchronous model. In other words, to raise a window one cannot simply call XMapWindow to map a window. One must call XMapWindow, which will transmit that command to the server, then one waits for the server to respond with a MapNotify event, and then one can proceed. When running over a network this potentially allows the client to send off multiple commands before waiting for the response to a single command, allowing improved performance. But when run on the local machine, this requires a great deal of round-trip communication that produces latency that causes many users to perceive X11 programs as "slow." This problem has been reduced somewhat through the use of shared memory, but still hinders performance. The asynchronous model was an excellent decision for the 1980s when most programs ran over the network. But in the current day, the backend is optimized for a use-case that is rarely used.
Beyond performance issues, the asynchronous model is also the root cause of much of the flickering that occurs on the desktop. As widgets are moved around, the asynchronous model causes repaints to occur while the windows are still in flux resulting in flickering. The developers at QT have effectively already abandoned X11 (or at least a good part of the design) by moving all of the event handling into the QT library to circumvent this flickering (see http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2007/08/09/qt-invaded-by-aliens-the-end-of-all- flicker).
A second fundamental problem with X11 is the absence of resolution independence. X11 describes all coordinates using integers that represent pixel positions. As screen sizes change and pixels become smaller (or less likely larger), then the display begins to appear pixelated. In a resolution independent scheme, all coordinates are described using floating-point values so that display is rendered correctly regardless of the screen size. Again, going with integers positions was an excellent design decision for the 1980s but is no longer an effective design. In the 1980s many of machines shipped without a math co-processor, so that floating-point operations were much much slower than integer operations and the quality of the graphical output was arguably less important. Today, virtually any modern processor has a math co-processor that can perform multipl
I don't really see why they need a free cloud-based offering to do that, MS Office has done extremely well at locking-in their standards in the past. TFA that it refers to also clearly argues this is MS having to compete with Google Docs
You seem to have almost answered your question. Msft has been successful at vendor lock-in, in the past, but now more people are wise to the scam. And now msft has to compete with google docs, and for the first time in a long time, msft may not be able to fully control the document standard. Some governments, and major institutions are taking a hard look at ODF.
Msft hates and fears ODF. Why do you think msft went so totally balistic - bribing judges etc - to get their OOXML accepted as an ISO standard. Msft will stop at nothing to get people away from a truly open standard.
Once you have all your documents in OOXML format, then what happens when Microsoft can no longer provide the service for free? Or what if the free version of OOXML is not compitable with Office-2012?
I don't know if that will happen, but from what I know of Microsoft's history, it seems possible, even likely.
It seems reasonable enough to me that the iPad, and other tablet devices, will have some impact on netbook sales. But I think the impact will be felt after a few years, not after one month.
That's how it seems to me anyway. Practically every episode means more characters, more mysteries, more loose ends created, and none of the 150 other major loose ends resolvedeven, and more incoherency. It seems like the writers just make things up as they go along.
It reminds of the way a small child might make up a story: "and then, the invisible guy is no longer invisible, and then the dead guy is no longer dead, and then a nuclear bomb explodes, and then they find a hidden Chinese temple, and then a smoke monster kills everybody in the temple, and then they find a secret lighthouse, and then they find a secret cave, and then this little kid keeps appearing and disappearing, and then . . . "
A poster on groklaw has a much more pessimistic view. Sadly, I think the poster makes some sense:
Something similar is going to come up again in the future. And again, and again, with different plaintiffs and different patents.
Eventually, because there's a random element in jury decisions, one of them will win big. Winning a jury verdict when you deserve to lose is a bit like throwing a double 6 with dice. The odds are against you, but if you keep trying, it will eventually come up.
If you understand that, then you will also understand that in the long run, a victory for one of these patent trolls is certain. Long term, there is no solution as long as software can be patented.
But WebOS? I think that's the fifth most popular OS for devices. I suppose that will HP to differentiate themselves in the market, but it's hardly a competitive advantage. Maybe WebOS will go the way of VMS.
In today's hyper-litigious atmosphere, I think the only reason to buy Palm is for the patent
Msft got HP to buy Palm so that HTC, or Google, could not buy Palm. Now, to repay HP for buying Palm, msft drops msft's own "iPad killer" thus eliminating a huge competitor for HP.
Msft and Apple, hate and fear Android - they want to patent troll Android out of existance. HP has no special love for Android, because Android would not differentiate HP enough from the other Android tablet, or phone, sellers.
HP is a very close partner with msft, with both PCs and phones. If either HTC, or google, bought Palm, they would be able to use Palm's arsenal of patents to counter-sue msft and/or apple.
Pure speculation on my part, but it is quite a coincidence that the following all happened at the same time:
Apple sues HTC Msft and HTC form a special patent deal HP buys Palm Msft discontinues Courier
Of course Apple can sell their products with whatever business license. But, is there not a bit of hypocrisy in Job's blasting Adobe for doing the same?
Have there not already been two articles on slashdot about how game developers are forced to work 14 hour days, six days a week? Also, isn't that stuff all being offshored, or given to guest workers?
My understanding is that Microsoft is not a patent troll. Microsoft completely understands that software patents are a minefield, and use their large portfolio for protective purposes against companies like Apple.
I think your understanding may need an update. Microsoft is using Acacia to attack Redhat, just like Ballmer threatened to do. Microsoft claims Linux infringes msft patents, but msft refuses to specify which patents. Msft funded the entire scox-scam.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that Texas is supporting a conservative bias, and that is not okay with me.
But, let's be honest, US academia has over-whelming supported a strong liberal bias for years. If Texas was re-writing history to support an agenda that was more favorable to the liberal point of view, it would hardly be news.
It seems to me that the media is up-in-arms over a local government pushing a conservative agenda, but the same media is all too happy to ignore local governments that rewrite history to favor a liberal agenda.
Neil's experience reminded him that a tightly controlled ecosystem backed by a major vendor does make it easier to define best practices, set development targets, and deliver results with a minimum of chaos. There's something to be said for that."
So whatever you do, don't use open standards, open standards screw up everything. Only develop for MSIE, and other "standards" used by major corporations to embrace-extend-extinguish.
And this coming from infoworld? Why do I smell a corporate propaganda thinly veiled as some sort tech commentary?
Patent trolls are a problem for big companies that have lots of money.
Wouldn't patent trolls be a much bigger problem for small companies, without lots of money, or large patent portfolios?
A company like Microsoft can drop a $100 million on a bogus lawsuit without a second thought. But, for a small company, with assets under $1 million, that might not be so easy.
If a small company were to sue to Microsoft over a patent violation, Microsoft would find 20 patent violations with which to counter sue. No matter who is right or wrong, Microsoft would win, just due to staying power.
You don't know what you're talking about.
What is it about people who don't know what they're talking about, that makes them talk about X11?
Could you be more specific? Specifically what have I stated that makes you think I don't know what I'm talking about? Please note, I have cited white papers from people who certainly know a lot more about it than I.
I think it's sad that most people don't realize how insanely abusive the BSA really is. I'll bet most households, and small business, would have illegal software by the BSA's extortion standards.
Google would support local applications so that people who are off-line, a fair percentage of their, time can still use google products.
If google apps offered no off-line capability at all, a lot of people would completely ignore google.
I think that may be the basic logic behind google gears.
I have set up many systems that dual boot windows and linux, in my experience, the GUI on the linux side is always much slower.
I found this post on the ubuntu forums, it explains some of the fundamental problems with the X11 architecture. It also cites a white paper which provide more detail.
404error wrote on the 13 Feb 09 at 01:52
I think that there has been a knee-jerk reaction to the original suggestion that is not necessarily founded on solid reasoning. Such a reaction is understandable, as a large, reasonably-functional piece of software should not simply be discarded without very strong motivation. And while the original post was well-intentioned, I do believe it could provide stronger arguments. While I have only modest experience programming directly in X11, I will do my best to explain why I also feel X11 should be replaced. If anyone has evidence that contradicts the following opinions, I would be most interested.
To go directly to the point, I think that the "linux desktop" needs a small, fast, fully-featured graphical backend. This backend should provide basic drawing primitives, input device event handling, network transparency, but should not involve itself with higher-level graphical interface design (like buttons and menus). So far, I suspect that most of the above posters would agree with this notion. Here is where we diverge: I do not think that X11 is small, fast, or fully-featured. And I think that there are fundamental aspects of the X11 protocol which will prevent any implementation from working well.
The first fundamental problem is that X11 is implemented using an asynchronous model. In other words, to raise a window one cannot simply call XMapWindow to map a window. One must call XMapWindow, which will transmit that command to the server, then one waits for the server to respond with a MapNotify event, and then one can proceed. When running over a network this potentially allows the client to send off multiple commands before waiting for the response to a single command, allowing improved performance. But when run on the local machine, this requires a great deal of round-trip communication that produces latency that causes many users to perceive X11 programs as "slow." This problem has been reduced somewhat through the use of shared memory, but still hinders performance. The asynchronous model was an excellent decision for the 1980s when most programs ran over the network. But in the current day, the backend is optimized for a use-case that is rarely used.
Beyond performance issues, the asynchronous model is also the root cause of much of the flickering that occurs on the desktop. As widgets are moved around, the asynchronous model causes repaints to occur while the windows are still in flux resulting in flickering. The developers at QT have effectively already abandoned X11 (or at least a good part of the design) by moving all of the event handling into the QT library to circumvent this flickering (see http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2007/08/09/qt-invaded-by-aliens-the-end-of-all- flicker).
A second fundamental problem with X11 is the absence of resolution independence. X11 describes all coordinates using integers that represent pixel positions. As screen sizes change and pixels become smaller (or less likely larger), then the display begins to appear pixelated. In a resolution independent scheme, all coordinates are described using floating-point values so that display is rendered correctly regardless of the screen size. Again, going with integers positions was an excellent design decision for the 1980s but is no longer an effective design. In the 1980s many of machines shipped without a math co-processor, so that floating-point operations were much much slower than integer operations and the quality of the graphical output was arguably less important. Today, virtually any modern processor has a math co-processor that can perform multipl
XWindow may have a place somewhere, but it seems to be poor fit for net devices.
Let's be honest, XWindow's performance is just bloody awful. It's slow, it pixelates, it's a difficult platform for software development.
The early 1980s architecture is not well suited to today's demands. And I doubt XWindow can be improved enough to make it worthwhile.
Apparently you not aware of msft's history. Msft has proven itself, over and over, to be every bit as evil as the "whiny children" here seem to think.
BTW: it was a US federal judge, not a slashdot poster, that accused msft of using "Tonya Harding" tactics.
Like I said, it's hippie bullshit...but it is true
I do not think the same concept can be both "bullshit" and true. It's a contradiction in terms.
Saw some show with the Chef Jamie Oliver, where he was trying to change school lunches.
The schools insisted the vegetables cooked into a casserole did not count as vegetables, but french fries did.
Might make a good south park episode. Too bad chef is gone.
I don't really see why they need a free cloud-based offering to do that, MS Office has done extremely well at locking-in their standards in the past. TFA that it refers to also clearly argues this is MS having to compete with Google Docs
You seem to have almost answered your question. Msft has been successful at vendor lock-in, in the past, but now more people are wise to the scam. And now msft has to compete with google docs, and for the first time in a long time, msft may not be able to fully control the document standard. Some governments, and major institutions are taking a hard look at ODF.
Msft hates and fears ODF. Why do you think msft went so totally balistic - bribing judges etc - to get their OOXML accepted as an ISO standard. Msft will stop at nothing to get people away from a truly open standard.
It's free to put your foot in bear trap.
Once you have all your documents in OOXML format, then what happens when Microsoft can no longer provide the service for free? Or what if the free version of OOXML is not compitable with Office-2012?
I don't know if that will happen, but from what I know of Microsoft's history, it seems possible, even likely.
The iPad has only been out about one month.
It seems reasonable enough to me that the iPad, and other tablet devices, will have some impact on netbook sales. But I think the impact will be felt after a few years, not after one month.
That's how it seems to me anyway. Practically every episode means more characters, more mysteries, more loose ends created, and none of the 150 other major loose ends resolvedeven, and more incoherency. It seems like the writers just make things up as they go along.
It reminds of the way a small child might make up a story: "and then, the invisible guy is no longer invisible, and then the dead guy is no longer dead, and then a nuclear bomb explodes, and then they find a hidden Chinese temple, and then a smoke monster kills everybody in the temple, and then they find a secret lighthouse, and then they find a secret cave, and then this little kid keeps appearing and disappearing, and then . . . "
A poster on groklaw has a much more pessimistic view. Sadly, I think the poster makes some sense:
Something similar is going to come up again in the future. And again, and again, with different plaintiffs and different patents.
Eventually, because there's a random element in jury decisions, one of them will win big. Winning a jury verdict when you deserve to lose is a bit like throwing a double 6 with dice. The odds are against you, but if you keep trying, it will eventually come up.
If you understand that, then you will also understand that in the long run, a victory for one of these patent trolls is certain. Long term, there is no solution as long as software can be patented.
But WebOS? I think that's the fifth most popular OS for devices. I suppose that will HP to differentiate themselves in the market, but it's hardly a competitive advantage. Maybe WebOS will go the way of VMS.
In today's hyper-litigious atmosphere, I think the only reason to buy Palm is for the patent
Look you retard, smart phones are a brave new world where you can differentiate based on OS
Yeah, and in the world of smart phone OSes, I think Palm comes in solidly in fifth place. Sure, that's worth $1.2 billion.
Besides, I mentioned that HP has no great love of android for just that reason.
Problem with that theory is that HP could have used Android for free, and saved themselves $1.2B.
Msft got HP to buy Palm so that HTC, or Google, could not buy Palm. Now, to repay HP for buying Palm, msft drops msft's own "iPad killer" thus eliminating a huge competitor for HP.
Msft and Apple, hate and fear Android - they want to patent troll Android out of existance. HP has no special love for Android, because Android would not differentiate HP enough from the other Android tablet, or phone, sellers.
HP is a very close partner with msft, with both PCs and phones. If either HTC, or google, bought Palm, they would be able to use Palm's arsenal of patents to counter-sue msft and/or apple.
Pure speculation on my part, but it is quite a coincidence that the following all happened at the same time:
Apple sues HTC
Msft and HTC form a special patent deal
HP buys Palm
Msft discontinues Courier
Of course Apple can sell their products with whatever business license. But, is there not a bit of hypocrisy in Job's blasting Adobe for doing the same?
Have there not already been two articles on slashdot about how game developers are forced to work 14 hour days, six days a week? Also, isn't that stuff all being offshored, or given to guest workers?
Are you being serious?
Msft owns the US DoJ. Remember the US DoJ getting all over msft about 15 years ago?
My understanding is that Microsoft is not a patent troll. Microsoft completely understands that software patents are a minefield, and use their large portfolio for protective purposes against companies like Apple.
I think your understanding may need an update. Microsoft is using Acacia to attack Redhat, just like Ballmer threatened to do. Microsoft claims Linux infringes msft patents, but msft refuses to specify which patents. Msft funded the entire scox-scam.
http://tinyurl.com/2846x75/
http://tinyurl.com/6apekx/
http://tinyurl.com/5q3w36/