Well, anti-aliased text is actually much more readable in general than standard text. On low res displays, it makes it possible to read anything at all (TV is a good example.), and on higher res displays it makes a huge difference to the apparent quality of the text.
Using anti-alising and sub-pixel glyph placement you can also eliminate the odd 'jumpiness' you get when the width of the font glyphs interferes with the pixel spacing of the display. You can see this most with rotated text: With non-antialised text, the baseline of the text appears to shift up and down, with anti-aliased text it's a straight line
And transparency and alpha compositing make decent colour vector graphics worth doing:)
Now, you can do all this at the moment if you want to by rendering to a pixmap on the client side, copying the pixmap to the Xserver and exposing it. Unsurprisingly this can be *really* slow. It also means that if you're rendering anti-alised text then you can't cut+paste it! Not Good. Putting all these primitives in the Xserver will result in *every* app being able to use these new features efficiently. I can't wait...
The current content model that almost everyone follows seems to be that you put your website on a server + pay somewhere along the line for the net connection. ie provider pays. Those who want to access your site pay none of those costs.
One possible solution to this would be for ISPs to run Freenet style servers, so that content moves closer to those who actually read it. Clearly this probably means abdicating some control over content you provide; I can forsee a future where the big 'commercial' sites run off their own servers, with paid for fat pipes to the rest of the net, whilst non-commercial sites contribute their stuff at minimal cost to a distributed network of Freenet servers.
And on a related line of inquiry, do race conditions every occur on busy projects where by the time you have merged and tested the latest additions to some file, someone has already checked in yet another update to a file you are working on forcing you to do another round of merging and testing?
Only if 1) Your developers don't talk to each other or 2) Your files don't map to the modular chunks of the system the developers are working on.
Most of the time, developers are working on separate functionality in separate files; when they overlap, you talk to each other...
CVS probably implies a build system broken into lots of files along natural system module breaks, but then you probably ought to be doing that anyway...
This is a complete tar pit --- MS has set the parameters in advance knowing that they've picked a forum where linux can't match them. Once they've got the data they want, they'll crow about how NT is faster than linux for the next decade, regardless of any improvements on either side (remember the NT C2 security farce?) The 'linux community' whoever that is, should concentrate on improving linux. Getting involved in silly fights with MS simply isn't worth the hassle. After all, we're going to win anyway in the long run, so why have the battle now?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, anti-aliased text is actually much more readable in general than standard text. On low res displays, it makes it possible to read anything at all (TV is a good example.), and on higher res displays it makes a huge difference to the apparent quality of the text. Using anti-alising and sub-pixel glyph placement you can also eliminate the odd 'jumpiness' you get when the width of the font glyphs interferes with the pixel spacing of the display. You can see this most with rotated text: With non-antialised text, the baseline of the text appears to shift up and down, with anti-aliased text it's a straight line And transparency and alpha compositing make decent colour vector graphics worth doing :)
Now, you can do all this at the moment if you want to by rendering to a pixmap on the client side, copying the pixmap to the Xserver and exposing it. Unsurprisingly this can be *really* slow. It also means that if you're rendering anti-alised text then you can't cut+paste it! Not Good. Putting all these primitives in the Xserver will result in *every* app being able to use these new features efficiently. I can't wait...
see charter88 for people actually getting on with this...
This is a troll, right? Furrfu
For a more open freeforall on the web, try playing around with a wiki:
http://www.joyful.com/zwiki/or the original:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki
The current content model that almost everyone follows seems to be that you put your website on a server + pay somewhere along the line for the net connection. ie provider pays. Those who want to access your site pay none of those costs.
One possible solution to this would be for ISPs to run Freenet style servers, so that content moves closer to those who actually read it. Clearly this probably means abdicating some control over content you provide; I can forsee a future where the big 'commercial' sites run off their own servers, with paid for fat pipes to the rest of the net, whilst non-commercial sites contribute their stuff at minimal cost to a distributed network of Freenet servers.
thoughts?
Ha! Would that it were.
:-) In an ideal world that is...
Advisory locks at least stop people unwittingly editing the same file. The paranoid can use mandatory locking...
additional:
And on a related line of inquiry, do race conditions every occur on busy projects where by the time you have merged and tested the latest additions to some file, someone has already checked in yet another update to a file you are working on forcing you to do another round of merging and testing?
Only if 1) Your developers don't talk to each other or 2) Your files don't map to the modular chunks of the system the developers are working on.
Most of the time, developers are working on separate functionality in separate files; when they overlap, you talk to each other...
CVS probably implies a build system broken into lots of files along natural system module breaks, but then you probably ought to be doing that anyway...
You can lock files under CVS if you want to. It requires a few scripts on the server side, but it's all fairly well documented.
You can also implement advisory locks too...
sounds like a series that the beeb did very recently. If so, its worth watching, but its a bit thin on the technical detail.
Incidentally, for a good explanation of how enigma et al really worked, Simon Singh's 'The Code Book' is a good read.
This is a complete tar pit --- MS has set the parameters in advance knowing that they've picked a forum where linux can't match them. Once they've got the data they want, they'll crow about how NT is faster than linux for the next decade, regardless of any improvements on either side (remember the NT C2 security farce?) The 'linux community' whoever that is, should concentrate on improving linux. Getting involved in silly fights with MS simply isn't worth the hassle. After all, we're going to win anyway in the long run, so why have the battle now? :-)