On one end, you have stsf. On the other, you have Xft2/fontconfig. Both have their strenghts. Both have their weaknesses. But the question I have on the stsf side is: does it make configuring X for fonts better than Xft2/fontconfig?
Xft2 uses a simple XML configuration file that tells us what directories are housing fonts. This is a good thing, as it makes font configurations easier. Add that the system is also capable of manipulating the basic presets so that those with an obscure setting can still use it. This is something that XFree86 isn't capable of unless one wants to tinker around with the old archaic XftConfig file that requires super-user access to change its settings.
Big change isn't good. However, I'm fine with stsf as long as it doesn't break anything. If it does, something needs to be done. And with the recent removal of KP from the core team, am I the only one who has a odd feeling that the XFree86 team will remove Xft2 as well?
I've read Mike Harris' log entry and I agree with many of the points he brought up.
But the thing is... if XFree86 wants to be more open, why did they remove Keith Packard from the core team in the first place? I know he has contributed in XFree86 that is beneficial but still, despite that he wants to fork off his own XFree86 tree, does the people at XFree86 require to know what he (Keith) intends to do with it?
There are plenty and varying reasons that I continue to use Windows. While I've no problem using other OS such as BSD or Linux, application and hardware support is often a deciding factor. For many people who own a computer, bleeding edge hardware is unsupported in other platforms. And then comes the applications and the GUI. True that we have enough softwares in the open-source area to fill in about every gap possible. But is it up to date? Supports stuff that is probably available only in Windows? There are still numerous reasons why people continue to use Windows instead of other operating systems.
One of the brought up reasons people use Windows is for games. This is true since I have quite a number that may not be supported under Linux. Sure we have WineX to use but how often do we end up having to get the update so our favorite just-released game is supported? It seems to me that it takes more effort to have Linux or *BSD be a reliable gaming computer.
As more and more hardware come out with USB and USB2 interfaces, question still remain as to whether this so-and-so hardware is supported under Linux. And if it isn't, is it worth getting still? Logitech, notorious for killing support on not-that-old hardware, still has little support under Linux. Matrox, known for its superior 2D quality and great multi-monitor support, has moderate support under Linux. Even scanners that work well under Windows may not work in Linux because manufactures are reluctant to support other operating systems other than Mac and Windows.
Our biggest problem is getting companies to support alternative OSes. Unless they help the BSD or Linux community out, we won't be seeing up-to-date support that Windows have. And the only way to use an alternate OS effectively is to simply craft the computer with supported hardware. And even that is limiting to some older generations of devices. Will these alternative OSes be able to compete with MacOSX or Windows? Well, what kind of hardware is inside?
Okay, now I've read a few posts here and there and they all claim that PPPoE has never gave them problem. Well, that's just one side of the story. The bad side of all this? It's just another protocol for the baby Bells to log people's use of the internet and their network. It's their way of keeping control of their own customers. As if they didn't have enough control, some smarty-pants went ahead and developed a way to encapsulate PPP on an ethernet connection, thus requiring some form of authentication when people connect using a network connection.
I've had bad experiences with trying to get PPPoE to work. It never worked. In fact, me and a local friend of mine tried hours trying to get Telocity's stupid router to work with the Linux box. But low and behold we never got it to work at all. My friend gave up and said, and I quote, "screw DSL, I'm getting cable." He did exactly that and ditched DSL. He is one of the many victims of the NorthPoint shutdown.
I've never had any problem with getting DHCP to work with cable. I have a cable connection and I didn't have any problem. It works seamlessly and it's fine by me. The mere thought that some idiot went to create a PPPoE protocol disgusts me. Rather, I loathe it. Everything was fine and dandy until we tried to get PPPoE up and running on his second DSL line (don't ask). I hate it. He hates it. Why should these DSL ISP force their customers to handle more problem than necessary? I tell ya, it's much more sane to either have some form of DHCP or simply use a static IP to save them, the customers, and the tech support people a lot of trouble of having to diagnose a PPPoE problem. I don't even care if it's a cool protocol. It's a protocol that I can do without. This is probably another reason why DSL is getting more complicated than cable. And to think that I wanted DSL originally. Yeesh!
I hate to think what would happen if the entire DSL network is running off of PPPoE. What then? My friend asks this that really makes you think. If DSL is supposed to be an "always-on" connection, why do we need PPPoE in the first place? PPPoE contradicts the concept of an always-on connection for DSL. What's next? The cable companies wanting some form of authentication over their network too?? For me, my only authentication is a mere MAC address. At least that makes more sense than having to tinker around with yet another username and password to remember.
Damn. Before we know it, Sony will change its name to SkyNet and be releasing hordes of Terminators upon us! Boycott Sony before they end off humanity!!!
Netscape 3 was indeed better, because in Windows I was able to disable image loading in 3 keystrokes. Nothing else was ever quicker than that.
Well you could say the problem we're facing is the fact that many say MS has won the browser war with IE while a lot of people are riding on the future hope that Netscape/Mozilla will make a comeback and show the world just how a browser should be made.
True that the web browsers should be made with future in mind. And that's the concept that some companies should employ at times. With the W3 Consortium creating more standards and fixing these new standards we have now, it becomes more necessary that we have web browsers that can handle these new standards.
Like many, I design and author web pages. But while I don't do that as a living, I do it as part of a hobby of mine, something to expand my knowledge on. And it comes as no surprise that there are times when you have to decide on things -- make your site Netscape compatible or IE compatible. I've ran into this situation many times when I used to maintain a fan page. It gets not only annoying but bothersome as well.
I'm disappointed in how the web is turning out. It's not about how Mozilla is better than IE or how IE is more stable than Mozilla or whatnot. This is about how the web is being transformed from being just text-based into something that is rich in content and shows off what the web can do. And for that, we need a demanding browser that can handle such a huge task. The developers of Mozilla came up with Gecko to make it as compliant to the current HTML standards as possible. IE does the same to a certain extent, and I find IE to be more compliant to some common standards (like CSS 1 or 2) than Netscape 4.x.
I've dumped Netscape 4.x not too long ago. I grew tire of it. It's old, outdated, and can't handle what IE has to offer currently. Alternatives such as Mozilla and Netscape 6 are still in development and they won't reach the majority of the audience unless they are shown it and what those "beta" softwares can do.
A lot of web pages I go to are more IE-oriented than Netscape. The way I see it, Netscape 4.x should be considered dead. And unless you feel like maintaining two versions of the same site, going all-out with loads of specific features that N4.x can't handle won't get you the other smaller percentage of the population who still uses outdated softwares. I'm hoping N6 and Mozilla will succeed. Because while IE5 runs fine without a problem, sometimes it just doesn't cooperate.
Okay, late on the posting. Thought I'd give my two cents in. Rather than trying to find who said what, I'll just refer them here...
A friend of mine who's on the other side of the US didn't like it. He thinks that it's all boring fancy slide-show puzzle game. I thought it's interesting. Sure it didn't have any action but that's the point when you look at how much power a PC needs to render all that in real-time (which is now made possible via realMYST). I thought the puzzle was great, even though it took me a couple of months to actually finish the game.
Someone brought up the point that it had a rather shotty ending. Yes, it had a shotty ending and it blatently advertises a sequel to the next game which we now know as Riven. But there's backing to that, if anyone went out and bought the 3 supplemental novels that're published. Because of the success of MYST and because it raises so many questions to the history of the characters themselves, these 3 novels were created to add depth to the culture and personalities behind Atrus, Catherine, Gehn, Sirrus & Achenar, as well as background information to the D'ni culture itself.
The novels themselves explained how Gehn came to be. It also explained how the intro speech was created when you played MYST. These novels, to me, are essential to understanding more of Riven's background, to me that is.
I've read all 3 supplemental novels to the MYST game. They're great reading, IMO. I found myself more fascinated by the fictional D'ni culture as I read the books.
For Riven's... uh, "substance" or core or plot or gameplay or puzzles (however you wanna define Riven in itself), I didn't find anything wrong with it other than the puzzles being harder than MYST was. Riven's puzzles were a lot more complicated in that it requires users to write down specific information or forever find yourself getting stuck at a particular point. But that's the only problem I ran into when playing it. And while Riven's ending brings a close to the MYST & Riven story, I thought that there won't be any more sequels. Guess I was wrong...
I viewed the MYST 3 trailer and looked through the credits. And I knew as I watched the trailer that something was missing. The Miller brothers who created the MYST & Riven world aren't doing the game. Somehow it seem to lack that authentic feel. Or maybe it's just my imagination. It just strangely doesn't seem right anymore to have a MYST 3. But that, and everything else, is, of course, my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
or sneak in your own applications.
iPod: 100 Warez in your pocket
On one end, you have stsf. On the other, you have Xft2/fontconfig. Both have their strenghts. Both have their weaknesses. But the question I have on the stsf side is: does it make configuring X for fonts better than Xft2/fontconfig?
Xft2 uses a simple XML configuration file that tells us what directories are housing fonts. This is a good thing, as it makes font configurations easier. Add that the system is also capable of manipulating the basic presets so that those with an obscure setting can still use it. This is something that XFree86 isn't capable of unless one wants to tinker around with the old archaic XftConfig file that requires super-user access to change its settings.
Big change isn't good. However, I'm fine with stsf as long as it doesn't break anything. If it does, something needs to be done. And with the recent removal of KP from the core team, am I the only one who has a odd feeling that the XFree86 team will remove Xft2 as well?
I've read Mike Harris' log entry and I agree with many of the points he brought up.
... if XFree86 wants to be more open, why did they remove Keith Packard from the core team in the first place? I know he has contributed in XFree86 that is beneficial but still, despite that he wants to fork off his own XFree86 tree, does the people at XFree86 require to know what he (Keith) intends to do with it?
But the thing is
an Apple story showing an AMD icon. We're still a month and a half off 'till April 1st though.
There are plenty and varying reasons that I continue to use Windows. While I've no problem using other OS such as BSD or Linux, application and hardware support is often a deciding factor. For many people who own a computer, bleeding edge hardware is unsupported in other platforms. And then comes the applications and the GUI. True that we have enough softwares in the open-source area to fill in about every gap possible. But is it up to date? Supports stuff that is probably available only in Windows? There are still numerous reasons why people continue to use Windows instead of other operating systems.
One of the brought up reasons people use Windows is for games. This is true since I have quite a number that may not be supported under Linux. Sure we have WineX to use but how often do we end up having to get the update so our favorite just-released game is supported? It seems to me that it takes more effort to have Linux or *BSD be a reliable gaming computer.
As more and more hardware come out with USB and USB2 interfaces, question still remain as to whether this so-and-so hardware is supported under Linux. And if it isn't, is it worth getting still? Logitech, notorious for killing support on not-that-old hardware, still has little support under Linux. Matrox, known for its superior 2D quality and great multi-monitor support, has moderate support under Linux. Even scanners that work well under Windows may not work in Linux because manufactures are reluctant to support other operating systems other than Mac and Windows.
Our biggest problem is getting companies to support alternative OSes. Unless they help the BSD or Linux community out, we won't be seeing up-to-date support that Windows have. And the only way to use an alternate OS effectively is to simply craft the computer with supported hardware. And even that is limiting to some older generations of devices. Will these alternative OSes be able to compete with MacOSX or Windows? Well, what kind of hardware is inside?
I've had bad experiences with trying to get PPPoE to work. It never worked. In fact, me and a local friend of mine tried hours trying to get Telocity's stupid router to work with the Linux box. But low and behold we never got it to work at all. My friend gave up and said, and I quote, "screw DSL, I'm getting cable." He did exactly that and ditched DSL. He is one of the many victims of the NorthPoint shutdown.
I've never had any problem with getting DHCP to work with cable. I have a cable connection and I didn't have any problem. It works seamlessly and it's fine by me. The mere thought that some idiot went to create a PPPoE protocol disgusts me. Rather, I loathe it. Everything was fine and dandy until we tried to get PPPoE up and running on his second DSL line (don't ask). I hate it. He hates it. Why should these DSL ISP force their customers to handle more problem than necessary? I tell ya, it's much more sane to either have some form of DHCP or simply use a static IP to save them, the customers, and the tech support people a lot of trouble of having to diagnose a PPPoE problem. I don't even care if it's a cool protocol. It's a protocol that I can do without. This is probably another reason why DSL is getting more complicated than cable. And to think that I wanted DSL originally. Yeesh!
I hate to think what would happen if the entire DSL network is running off of PPPoE. What then? My friend asks this that really makes you think. If DSL is supposed to be an "always-on" connection, why do we need PPPoE in the first place? PPPoE contradicts the concept of an always-on connection for DSL. What's next? The cable companies wanting some form of authentication over their network too?? For me, my only authentication is a mere MAC address. At least that makes more sense than having to tinker around with yet another username and password to remember.
Damn. Before we know it, Sony will change its name to SkyNet and be releasing hordes of Terminators upon us! Boycott Sony before they end off humanity!!!
Well you could say the problem we're facing is the fact that many say MS has won the browser war with IE while a lot of people are riding on the future hope that Netscape/Mozilla will make a comeback and show the world just how a browser should be made.
True that the web browsers should be made with future in mind. And that's the concept that some companies should employ at times. With the W3 Consortium creating more standards and fixing these new standards we have now, it becomes more necessary that we have web browsers that can handle these new standards.
Like many, I design and author web pages. But while I don't do that as a living, I do it as part of a hobby of mine, something to expand my knowledge on. And it comes as no surprise that there are times when you have to decide on things -- make your site Netscape compatible or IE compatible. I've ran into this situation many times when I used to maintain a fan page. It gets not only annoying but bothersome as well.
I'm disappointed in how the web is turning out. It's not about how Mozilla is better than IE or how IE is more stable than Mozilla or whatnot. This is about how the web is being transformed from being just text-based into something that is rich in content and shows off what the web can do. And for that, we need a demanding browser that can handle such a huge task. The developers of Mozilla came up with Gecko to make it as compliant to the current HTML standards as possible. IE does the same to a certain extent, and I find IE to be more compliant to some common standards (like CSS 1 or 2) than Netscape 4.x.
I've dumped Netscape 4.x not too long ago. I grew tire of it. It's old, outdated, and can't handle what IE has to offer currently. Alternatives such as Mozilla and Netscape 6 are still in development and they won't reach the majority of the audience unless they are shown it and what those "beta" softwares can do.
A lot of web pages I go to are more IE-oriented than Netscape. The way I see it, Netscape 4.x should be considered dead. And unless you feel like maintaining two versions of the same site, going all-out with loads of specific features that N4.x can't handle won't get you the other smaller percentage of the population who still uses outdated softwares. I'm hoping N6 and Mozilla will succeed. Because while IE5 runs fine without a problem, sometimes it just doesn't cooperate.
A friend of mine who's on the other side of the US didn't like it. He thinks that it's all boring fancy slide-show puzzle game. I thought it's interesting. Sure it didn't have any action but that's the point when you look at how much power a PC needs to render all that in real-time (which is now made possible via realMYST). I thought the puzzle was great, even though it took me a couple of months to actually finish the game.
Someone brought up the point that it had a rather shotty ending. Yes, it had a shotty ending and it blatently advertises a sequel to the next game which we now know as Riven. But there's backing to that, if anyone went out and bought the 3 supplemental novels that're published. Because of the success of MYST and because it raises so many questions to the history of the characters themselves, these 3 novels were created to add depth to the culture and personalities behind Atrus, Catherine, Gehn, Sirrus & Achenar, as well as background information to the D'ni culture itself.
The novels themselves explained how Gehn came to be. It also explained how the intro speech was created when you played MYST. These novels, to me, are essential to understanding more of Riven's background, to me that is.
I've read all 3 supplemental novels to the MYST game. They're great reading, IMO. I found myself more fascinated by the fictional D'ni culture as I read the books.
For Riven's ... uh, "substance" or core or plot or gameplay or puzzles (however you wanna define Riven in itself), I didn't find anything wrong with it other than the puzzles being harder than MYST was. Riven's puzzles were a lot more complicated in that it requires users to write down specific information or forever find yourself getting stuck at a particular point. But that's the only problem I ran into when playing it. And while Riven's ending brings a close to the MYST & Riven story, I thought that there won't be any more sequels. Guess I was wrong...
I viewed the MYST 3 trailer and looked through the credits. And I knew as I watched the trailer that something was missing. The Miller brothers who created the MYST & Riven world aren't doing the game. Somehow it seem to lack that authentic feel. Or maybe it's just my imagination. It just strangely doesn't seem right anymore to have a MYST 3. But that, and everything else, is, of course, my opinion.