Going by an extrapolation of the decrease in computer size over the past 50 years, I fully expect kids in the next 20 years or so to laugh at the size of today's machines.
What I had not been able to figure out was how this would be achieved - I just assumed it would be on the lines of an all-on-one chip kinda thing.
Eliminating the need for a physical layer on which to solder components on does go quite a long way to reducing the space footprint.
However, what of the bulky power suppplies and the hard drives and DVD burners that are still as bulky as ever? Methinks we need a breakthrough in memory tech too.
That's some really good feedabck, thanks. Yeah, I was thinking about The Gimp too - it's really excellent and since PhotoShop is too expensive, I think The Gimp will more than make up for it. Inkscape might round off a very interesting range of graphics capaibilties - Gimp for raster, Blender for 3D and inkscape for SVG. Plus they're all installable on Windows. I have just given a lot of Knoppix CDs to the principal. Hopefully, by the time these kids are looking for jobs, Linux will be a lot more widespread and an exposure to Linux combined with a decent computer knowledge in something like Graphics should help them out some - it is reasons like these that make me support open source - you can really do some good work with it without corporate greed getting involved. Thanks to every person who contributes - you're defintely helping to make a difference.
Among all you people out there who have worked on a wide variety of 3D graphics packages out there including 3DSMax, Maya, LightWave, Blender, etc...can you guys shed some light on how well Blender stacks up against the competition? Any links to some great tutorials would be really appreciated too, because, since it's free, I'm thinking of setting it up for a poor orphanage here in India that just had some pretty decent computers donated so the kids can start messing around on them. So, let's say I just install it there on the school computers and kids from 3rd to the 10th grade mess with blender. What chance do you think they have of developing some decent 3D graphics skills that they could use in the real world? Let's take willingness to learn as a given - in fact, it's so much, it's WAY past enthusiasm. The barrier is literacy - therefore, the tutorials will just be there, but the fact that they will be used cannot be taken as a given. In short, what do you think the chances are that a kid, with very little knowledge of a computer can start using blender and learn it in a few years to the point where the 3D skills developed give him/her a pretty decent chance of an entry level job in the graphics industry? The reason I ask is because I have seen some of the kids there and they are true artists. You should see what they can do with MS Paint.
What it does is mimic the interface of an UNMODIFIED Firefox. Install ANY exension that changes the menubar or toolbar and you'll notice all that gone in the new window.
Heck, you don't even need to install any extensions...just customize your toolbar a little...place ANY icon after the help menu and try the proof of concept...it doesn't work - the difference is too obvious.
Neat trick, definitely, but I don't see it as much more.
...perfecting the technique of causing mass frustration stretching all the way from the individual consumer to entire governments through the release of buggy software and the use of questioable business practices to guarantee that the very same buggy software is used in place of better alternatives.
Re:People still use a shell for Linux?
on
Bash 3.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
How would you use the GNOME GUI to parse a dynamic HTML file, extract some data, re-format it and mail you the content on a regular basis?
OK...the "periodic" functionality can be got with a GUI based scheduler, but what would u schedule?
Open a terminal...10 minutes of shell scripting with sed, awk and a few regular expressions and your work is done through a simple shell script.
It takes imagination, creativity and research to write believable fiction and/or fantasy. Tolkien not only did this, but he built up the finer details to such an extent that the level of submersion in his books is something that has to be experienced to be believed. Usually, when you read a fantasy novel, you are transported into another world and the story takes off. With Tolkien, he builds that world around you so that you are intimately aware of it's finer details and not just the storyline. This means, it's not so much a story any more to you - it's more like an alternate reality. There are no boundaries to the imagination and Tolkien proved it through his works. I salute him. There is simply no other way to put it.
1) VERY SMOOTH scrolling with no blurs, no matter how complicated the diagrams. 2) The ability to control the content with just your hands - no keyboard, mouse or touchpad - you should be able to hold it like a book and read it - maybe a tap on the lower right corner to advance to the next page and on the lower left corner to go to the previous page. 3) Eliminate the need to sit facing a vertical screen. 4) Minimize the dialogs. A book doesn't ask you if you want to save the file. 5) Make the text search work through voice recognition. 6) Hardly any boot-up time.
Looking at the direction mobile phones are moving, I think it's a pretty good possibility that the the PDA, handhelds and Audio/Video Devices of the future will essentially be mobiles phones with these features.
Adding up the counts in those categories we have:
Linux : 38+17+36 = 91 Windows: 74+24+8 = 106
If you add in the "other" category, you have:
Linux : 91+38=134 Windows:106+22=128
Either way, it's really close, except for one thing - the future trend and the contributions made back to the OSS community as a result of the devices that use Linux.
The thing is, as more of these devices are released, more code and/or documentation and bugfixes will be released by companies back to the OSS community because they will be using many OSS tools in the development of these products, improving them if necessary in the process and finally releasing some of the improvements to the OSS community.
This will make it easier for more companies to re-use OSS tools and software and we have a potential cascade effect that could create a very wide development base for embedded Linux devices.
On the windows side, the situation is not the same - companies usually don't release their any portion of their code into a "public pool" for use by the community.
This essentially means, that while the numbers are an even split now, it looks like the Linux numbers will grow faster than the Windows numbers.
Now, also remember that with the devices comes whatever the devices are connected to - namely PCs, Macs and the like. Therefore, at the very minimum, this could lead to a much better awareness of the Linux OS. What follows awareness is usually curiosity - and since Linux is a quality product, curiosity can only be a good thing.
Therefore, I'd just say that although the numbers are an even split now, they actually represent the success of Linux in the embedded devices market and given time, this will seep into the desktop and that will be a good thing. Competition always is.
AMD has lots of processors that do both 32-bit and 64-bit. Problem is the number of different sockets out there. This means you need to change your motherboard everytime you switch from one socket to another - big expense and something that makes u think a lot about which socket u want.
Intel says...use our 64-bit procs and you won't need to change the socket. This is a marketing thing. I don't think there will be much of a performance difference if the socket is changed. But it makes things more convenient for the customer.
Now, if AMD had done this...they would have grabbed market share. It might still not be too late to unify the sockets...but then it looks like it will be more difficult for AMD given the differences in the processors available across their entire range.
...that you were able to get people who were used to Internet Explorer use Firefox without them noticing much of a difference...I mean it says a LOT for the intuitive design of Firefox that an IE user can just switch to it immediately without any hiccups.
Now when I say intuitive, I don't mean that IE is intuitive. I mean that since people are used to IE, they have developed a certain feel for where the buttons should be, how the browser behaves, etc. The fact that Firefox can replicate that is a compliment to the design team.
At level one, do what 90% of all users would do. At the next level, allow the remaining 10% to perform more complex tasks. Maybe have one more super-tech level where the elite 1 or 2% can delve in and tweak.
Example 1: Web browser app like Firefox: level 1 : It installs itself, all plugins and figures out how to handle almost any mime type. level 2 : Extensions & more level 3 : about:config, etc
Example 2: Web Design Software like Quanta Plus: level 1 : WYSIWYG interface that produces nice clean W3C compliant code and maybe buttons called "text effects" for stuff like mouse-overs that allows the user to see what will happen to the text. level 2 : Code View, CSS Editor, etc Level 3 : Javascript debugger, PHP debugger, MySQL queries, etc..
Basically, you should never be forced to descend to levels 2 or 3 to be able to accomplish a basic task.
What we need on Linux is better 3D game support. Hear me out on this.
Better game support = more kids knowing about Linux = more parents curious about linux = more companies being aware about Linux. Better game suuport also = no need for dual boot = wider use of Linux = a wider testing base. Better game support also = more hardware vendors writing drivers for Linux = benefit in software categories other than gaming. More kids knowing about Linux also = More potential Linux only users = a wider pool of future OSS developers.
There seems to be only ONE hardware vendor that has recognized the importance of gaming to Linux and that's NVIDIA. I applaud them for that. They will reap the benefits when more and more people buy NVIDIA cards not just because of their performance, but because there are drivers available for Linux.
The sooner software gaming companies recognize this fact, the better. The nice part is that it is too late for any company, including M$ to keep them from writing games for Linux. The Linux market is starting to take off and it is in their interest to wake up and smell the coffee.
Oh yeah....forgot to mention...teh reason these are based on Firefox alone is to basically make non-Firefox users envious of the functionality that Firefox would offer.
Also maybe change that "not standards compliant" message to "This website has not been designed to display properly on any browser. These guys thought only people using IE would visit their site" I think that would be suitably non-technical while getting the message across:)
Well, these one are based on Firefox alone seeing as how I figure that even by the time Firefox hits 2.0, IE will still be the majority browser out there. Well, here they are without further ado:
1) Extensions: Firefox monitors the user's browsing habits (not the sites visited, but the way Firefox itself is used) and from time to time, either automatically or when asked to, suggests extensions that the user might find useful. Example: Person uses lots of tabs while browsing. Firefox looks up Tabbed browsing extensions, finds the one that suits the user's needs and asks the user something like "There is an extension that would make working with a lot of tabs a lot easier. Would you like to try using it? You can always remove it if you don't like it and I will help you with that"
2) Website display: The common mis-conception is that when a site does not display properly in a browser, that it is the browser's fault. It might help Firefox's cause to point this out to the the user in non-technical jargon. The machine learning part comes in where Firefox corrects the coding errors and presents the site the way it was meant to be used. Something like this in the status bar: "This website is not standards compliant. However, I have just corrected the errors so it works well for you."
3) Give Firefox and identity that evolves with it's user: Again, monitor the way the browser is used and the type of extensions installed. Based on that, adjust how technical the level of responses are so that the browser becomes something of a browsing companion. Finally, make the browser "personality" portable. Example: User has the web developer toolbar installed and uses it quite often. Give more technical responses about the state of a site or the state of firefox. Allow the user to go deeper into Firefox's preferences to make changes. User has no extensions installed, or if there are any installed, they are hardly ever used. Firefox uses an almost wizard-like interface and makes it's questions and responses to the user more descriptive.
That's all I can think of right now....will keep brain storming.
Thanks. I appreciate it. It's what I suspected myself and as far as possible I try to use PNG in my web pages. However, if JPG turns out looking as good and produce significantly smaller images, then I use it. I've almost abandoned GIF of late because of it's lack of support for partial transparency which is really important when you have an anti-aliased image on a transparent background.
I have asked this question EVERY time a discussion between GIF and PNG has come out and still have to get a satisfactory answer:
I have heard it said many times that you can achieve some really amazing compression rates with PNG while still maintaining a surprising amount of image quality. First, Is this true? Second, If it is true, which compression tools do I use and what parameters do I specify to achieve better than GIF or JPG compression? Third, In my experience, it depends on the picture you're trying to compress. Is there ANY way that I can configure a PNG compression tool to CONSISTENTLY (or atleast 80% of the time) produce better compression and image quality than either GIF or JPEG?
Slashdot Mirror
they are launching a format they claim should support up to 2TB--big difference
;)
Kinda like NTFS 4.0
Going by an extrapolation of the decrease in computer size over the past 50 years, I fully expect kids in the next 20 years or so to laugh at the size of today's machines.
What I had not been able to figure out was how this would be achieved - I just assumed it would be on the lines of an all-on-one chip kinda thing.
Eliminating the need for a physical layer on which to solder components on does go quite a long way to reducing the space footprint.
However, what of the bulky power suppplies and the hard drives and DVD burners that are still as bulky as ever? Methinks we need a breakthrough in memory tech too.
That's some really good feedabck, thanks. Yeah, I was thinking about The Gimp too - it's really excellent and since PhotoShop is too expensive, I think The Gimp will more than make up for it. Inkscape might round off a very interesting range of graphics capaibilties - Gimp for raster, Blender for 3D and inkscape for SVG. Plus they're all installable on Windows. I have just given a lot of Knoppix CDs to the principal. Hopefully, by the time these kids are looking for jobs, Linux will be a lot more widespread and an exposure to Linux combined with a decent computer knowledge in something like Graphics should help them out some - it is reasons like these that make me support open source - you can really do some good work with it without corporate greed getting involved. Thanks to every person who contributes - you're defintely helping to make a difference.
Among all you people out there who have worked on a wide variety of 3D graphics packages out there including 3DSMax, Maya, LightWave, Blender, etc...can you guys shed some light on how well Blender stacks up against the competition? Any links to some great tutorials would be really appreciated too, because, since it's free, I'm thinking of setting it up for a poor orphanage here in India that just had some pretty decent computers donated so the kids can start messing around on them.
So, let's say I just install it there on the school computers and kids from 3rd to the 10th grade mess with blender. What chance do you think they have of developing some decent 3D graphics skills that they could use in the real world? Let's take willingness to learn as a given - in fact, it's so much, it's WAY past enthusiasm. The barrier is literacy - therefore, the tutorials will just be there, but the fact that they will be used cannot be taken as a given.
In short, what do you think the chances are that a kid, with very little knowledge of a computer can start using blender and learn it in a few years to the point where the 3D skills developed give him/her a pretty decent chance of an entry level job in the graphics industry? The reason I ask is because I have seen some of the kids there and they are true artists. You should see what they can do with MS Paint.
What it does is mimic the interface of an UNMODIFIED Firefox. Install ANY exension that changes the menubar or toolbar and you'll notice all that gone in the new window.
Heck, you don't even need to install any extensions...just customize your toolbar a little...place ANY icon after the help menu and try the proof of concept...it doesn't work - the difference is too obvious.
Neat trick, definitely, but I don't see it as much more.
...perfecting the technique of causing mass frustration stretching all the way from the individual consumer to entire governments through the release of buggy software and the use of questioable business practices to guarantee that the very same buggy software is used in place of better alternatives.
How would you use the GNOME GUI to parse a dynamic HTML file, extract some data, re-format it and mail you the content on a regular basis?
OK...the "periodic" functionality can be got with a GUI based scheduler, but what would u schedule?
Open a terminal...10 minutes of shell scripting with sed, awk and a few regular expressions and your work is done through a simple shell script.
Well, the first time, he had no brain and the second time, he was learning how to read :)
yeah...this IS essentially the "Bourne Supremacy" ;) and hopefully the next release will be the "Bourne Ultimate-um" ;)
It takes imagination, creativity and research to write believable fiction and/or fantasy. Tolkien not only did this, but he built up the finer details to such an extent that the level of submersion in his books is something that has to be experienced to be believed.
Usually, when you read a fantasy novel, you are transported into another world and the story takes off. With Tolkien, he builds that world around you so that you are intimately aware of it's finer details and not just the storyline. This means, it's not so much a story any more to you - it's more like an alternate reality.
There are no boundaries to the imagination and Tolkien proved it through his works. I salute him. There is simply no other way to put it.
1) VERY SMOOTH scrolling with no blurs, no matter how complicated the diagrams.
2) The ability to control the content with just your hands - no keyboard, mouse or touchpad - you should be able to hold it like a book and read it - maybe a tap on the lower right corner to advance to the next page and on the lower left corner to go to the previous page.
3) Eliminate the need to sit facing a vertical screen.
4) Minimize the dialogs. A book doesn't ask you if you want to save the file.
5) Make the text search work through voice recognition.
6) Hardly any boot-up time.
Looking at the direction mobile phones are moving, I think it's a pretty good possibility that the the PDA, handhelds and Audio/Video Devices of the future will essentially be mobiles phones with these features.
:
:
Adding up the counts in those categories we have
Linux : 38+17+36 = 91
Windows: 74+24+8 = 106
If you add in the "other" category, you have
Linux : 91+38=134
Windows:106+22=128
Either way, it's really close, except for one thing - the future trend and the contributions made back to the OSS community as a result of the devices that use Linux.
The thing is, as more of these devices are released, more code and/or documentation and bugfixes will be released by companies back to the OSS community because they will be using many OSS tools in the development of these products, improving them if necessary in the process and finally releasing some of the improvements to the OSS community.
This will make it easier for more companies to re-use OSS tools and software and we have a potential cascade effect that could create a very wide development base for embedded Linux devices.
On the windows side, the situation is not the same - companies usually don't release their any portion of their code into a "public pool" for use by the community.
This essentially means, that while the numbers are an even split now, it looks like the Linux numbers will grow faster than the Windows numbers.
Now, also remember that with the devices comes whatever the devices are connected to - namely PCs, Macs and the like. Therefore, at the very minimum, this could lead to a much better awareness of the Linux OS. What follows awareness is usually curiosity - and since Linux is a quality product, curiosity can only be a good thing.
Therefore, I'd just say that although the numbers are an even split now, they actually represent the success of Linux in the embedded devices market and given time, this will seep into the desktop and that will be a good thing. Competition always is.
AMD has lots of processors that do both 32-bit and 64-bit. Problem is the number of different sockets out there. This means you need to change your motherboard everytime you switch from one socket to another - big expense and something that makes u think a lot about which socket u want.
Intel says...use our 64-bit procs and you won't need to change the socket. This is a marketing thing. I don't think there will be much of a performance difference if the socket is changed. But it makes things more convenient for the customer.
Now, if AMD had done this...they would have grabbed market share. It might still not be too late to unify the sockets...but then it looks like it will be more difficult for AMD given the differences in the processors available across their entire range.
...that you were able to get people who were used to Internet Explorer use Firefox without them noticing much of a difference...I mean it says a LOT for the intuitive design of Firefox that an IE user can just switch to it immediately without any hiccups.
Now when I say intuitive, I don't mean that IE is intuitive. I mean that since people are used to IE, they have developed a certain feel for where the buttons should be, how the browser behaves, etc. The fact that Firefox can replicate that is a compliment to the design team.
Way to go guys!
was just a little too RISCy
Well on Windows you'd get a message saying...
...
"Windows has detected 1024 new sound cards and is installing them..."
and then the inevitable..
"Windows needs to restart your computer. Click OK to restart"
and then on system restart
1024 sound control apps in the system tray! =)
That would make an interesting hamster hairstyle mod.
At level one, do what 90% of all users would do.
: :
: :
At the next level, allow the remaining 10% to perform more complex tasks.
Maybe have one more super-tech level where the elite 1 or 2% can delve in and tweak.
Example 1
Web browser app like Firefox
level 1 : It installs itself, all plugins and figures out how to handle almost any mime type.
level 2 : Extensions & more
level 3 : about:config, etc
Example 2
Web Design Software like Quanta Plus
level 1 : WYSIWYG interface that produces nice clean W3C compliant code and maybe buttons called "text effects" for stuff like mouse-overs that allows the user to see what will happen to the text.
level 2 : Code View, CSS Editor, etc
Level 3 : Javascript debugger, PHP debugger, MySQL queries, etc..
Basically, you should never be forced to descend to levels 2 or 3 to be able to accomplish a basic task.
What we need on Linux is better 3D game support.
Hear me out on this.
Better game support = more kids knowing about Linux = more parents curious about linux = more companies being aware about Linux.
Better game suuport also = no need for dual boot = wider use of Linux = a wider testing base.
Better game support also = more hardware vendors writing drivers for Linux = benefit in software categories other than gaming.
More kids knowing about Linux also = More potential Linux only users = a wider pool of future OSS developers.
There seems to be only ONE hardware vendor that has recognized the importance of gaming to Linux and that's NVIDIA. I applaud them for that. They will reap the benefits when more and more people buy NVIDIA cards not just because of their performance, but because there are drivers available for Linux.
The sooner software gaming companies recognize this fact, the better. The nice part is that it is too late for any company, including M$ to keep them from writing games for Linux. The Linux market is starting to take off and it is in their interest to wake up and smell the coffee.
Oh yeah....forgot to mention...teh reason these are based on Firefox alone is to basically make non-Firefox users envious of the functionality that Firefox would offer.
:)
Also maybe change that "not standards compliant" message to "This website has not been designed to display properly on any browser. These guys thought only people using IE would visit their site" I think that would be suitably non-technical while getting the message across
Well, these one are based on Firefox alone seeing as how I figure that even by the time Firefox hits 2.0, IE will still be the majority browser out there. Well, here they are without further ado :
1) Extensions:
Firefox monitors the user's browsing habits (not the sites visited, but the way Firefox itself is used) and from time to time, either automatically or when asked to, suggests extensions that the user might find useful.
Example:
Person uses lots of tabs while browsing. Firefox looks up Tabbed browsing extensions, finds the one that suits the user's needs and asks the user something like "There is an extension that would make working with a lot of tabs a lot easier. Would you like to try using it? You can always remove it if you don't like it and I will help you with that"
2) Website display:
The common mis-conception is that when a site does not display properly in a browser, that it is the browser's fault. It might help Firefox's cause to point this out to the the user in non-technical jargon. The machine learning part comes in where Firefox corrects the coding errors and presents the site the way it was meant to be used.
Something like this in the status bar:
"This website is not standards compliant. However, I have just corrected the errors so it works well for you."
3) Give Firefox and identity that evolves with it's user:
Again, monitor the way the browser is used and the type of extensions installed. Based on that, adjust how technical the level of responses are so that the browser becomes something of a browsing companion. Finally, make the browser "personality" portable.
Example:
User has the web developer toolbar installed and uses it quite often. Give more technical responses about the state of a site or the state of firefox. Allow the user to go deeper into Firefox's preferences to make changes.
User has no extensions installed, or if there are any installed, they are hardly ever used. Firefox uses an almost wizard-like interface and makes it's questions and responses to the user more descriptive.
That's all I can think of right now....will keep brain storming.
Are we still in America?
;)
Nope. We're on Slashdot
Well, K Krap and all is fine until we land up with K K K
Thanks. I appreciate it. It's what I suspected myself and as far as possible I try to use PNG in my web pages. However, if JPG turns out looking as good and produce significantly smaller images, then I use it. I've almost abandoned GIF of late because of it's lack of support for partial transparency which is really important when you have an anti-aliased image on a transparent background.
I have asked this question EVERY time a discussion between GIF and PNG has come out and still have to get a satisfactory answer:
I have heard it said many times that you can achieve some really amazing compression rates with PNG while still maintaining a surprising amount of image quality.
First, Is this true?
Second, If it is true, which compression tools do I use and what parameters do I specify to achieve better than GIF or JPG compression?
Third, In my experience, it depends on the picture you're trying to compress. Is there ANY way that I can configure a PNG compression tool to CONSISTENTLY (or atleast 80% of the time) produce better compression and image quality than either GIF or JPEG?