This is the same argument as always. Just use the extensions. But these aren't transparent to the programmer. Applications that use them have to specifically link to them. If you wanted, for example, AA fonts in an older application you'd have to rewrite it to make use of them.
Furthermore, why isn't window management a part of the X server? Look at all the resources that go into the writing of window managers. There are scores of window managers, and they all really do the same thing. Okay, so WindowMaker's titlebars look different than sawfish's titlebars. The look of a window border would be better served by having an advanced built-in theme engine, rather than everyone having to create a new wm just to get the look they want. Window management should be something that Just Happens. After all, there is nothing special about putting windows on a screen. All of the other things that includes such as menus and docks are outside of the scope of window management.
In short, X is too low level and it needs a lot of things built in that are now floating around as extensions and outside applications.
From the Slashdot article: Looks like LOTR is a big hit even among non-nerds.
This is a rather arrogant attitude that I find annoying. These books were written long ago before there even was such a thing as a "nerd". My grandma, who was a tough Montana pioneer woman, liked Tolkien's books. In the 60s, the Tolkien books were very popular among college students. Where is it written that Lord of the Rings was made for nerds?
"US Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. is asking RIAA execs to explain how they can collect royalties on various blank media at the same time that the RIAA members are implementing copy protection mechanisms, with particular reference to the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992." Glad someone is asking the question.
The sad part is, he's the only one asking questions like this, and no one is listening except the choir.
I just wish my esc key wasn't way up there. It needs to be in the caps lock position.
I have solved this problem. I remapped my keyboard to swap the Control and Caps Lock keys. Now, I can just hit Control-[, the equivalent of Escape and easy on the fingers. The reason I didn't switch the Caps Lock with the Escape key is because I use Control for a lot of other things and I occasionally like to fire up emacs.
It looks exactly like the current gnome except for the aa fonts. I use kde, but I always look forward to a new gnome release. Since gnome 1.2 came out, it hasn't seemed to change much at all. With these screenshots, it appears like it may be more of the same only a little prettier. Of course, it may be better performance-wise.
I noticed in one shot of the control panel, there was the ability to customize "Sawfish Window Manager". Okay, I'll start my rant. Remember awhile back when gnome did their usability study? Haven't they learned anything? How many users know, or even need to know what a window manager is? How many users know, or need to know, what a sawfish window manager is? Instead you could have a couple of separate entries like "Change Window Decorations" and "Change Window Behavior". That ought to cover any relevant window management issues. This business of having more than one choice of window managers is really silly anyway for a desktop environment. This is treated as a selling point! It's not. Window managers are for people who don't like desktop environments and want complete control. Make this shit transparent to people! For a company like Ximian who obviously has visions of taking over the world, this ought to be a piece of cake.
Kde is equally guilty of this sin. When you change your desktop theme, the entire desktop should change. The window borders, the widgets, the background, the taskbar, everything. But no. In kde, changing the theme doesn't change the window border. You have to select that separately. As well, they give you the option of changing the "style" in addition to the two options "theme" and "window border". In gnome, it's a little better. You can change your theme. But it doesn't affect the window borders. You have to customize "Sawfish Window Manager" to do that. At that point, however, Joe User has already given up.
Starting your scripts with #!/bin/bash shows that you live in a Linux-centric world. No other OS puts bash under/bin. Since there's normally a link from bash to sh, it really makes sense for compatibility reasons to use #!/bin/sh. Of course, if you use bash-specific features in your scripts, your scripts won't be portable anyway and it doesn't really matter, I suppose.
I'm not going to totally knock Redhat, Mandrake & Co, but we already have what they provide. Connectiva is not providing anything new, aside from being predominantly non-english. Now we need a NEW choice, because there is nothing yet out there that really anyone can install and use. That means a very limited set of the population, the geek set, has access to a HUGE number of distros and choices. But what about the rest of the people? Where are their choices?
I read the review for this, and it sounds pretty ho-hum. The conclusion states that it's fast and stable...well, it's running the same software as all the other 10,000 distros out there. What is it that makes it particularly fast and stable by comparison?
The other thing that really bothers me is that this sounds like it has virtually the same features as all the other big names: Graphical install, easy to set up...except it gives too many goddamned options! I would like to see a distro that is a coherent whole, not a mishmash of every possible choice. I mean, it gives a choice between 2.2 and 2.4 kernels! There is not a non-geek in this world who knows or cares what that means. Nor do they care whether is runs KDE or GNOME. It ought to customize one or the other to be the Connectiva desktop, thus making a product that's unique to them, perhaps adding to the KDE control panel the ability to configure everything on the system in one place. Instead they give you a choice of three desktops!
Does the world need another distribution that caters only to geeks?
By the time the hurd is stable and featureful enough for everyone to use, we'll all be using 20GHZ machines. At that point, it may be worth the loss of speed.
With this in mind, try to name one single case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable.
Wow, I'm amazed you can't think of one case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable. That takes a determined lack of imagination.Here's a quick example off the top of my head of a company who could never survive by making free software. For highly specialized applications that have a very small market, it really doesn't make sense to be pushing free software.
Now you will begin to see what RMS is getting at.
Well, I understand what RMS is getting at, because I have read his writings: he wants there to be no such thing as proprietary software. That's fine for him, but not everyone shares his vision. No matter how much philosophizing he does on the subject, my definition of freedom will probably always conflict with his. This is my right. I fear that if his vision were the dominant one, I would no longer have this right.
Re:No, its just a scale replica - with bandaids on
on
Da Vinci Bridge Built
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Notice in the picture the four T shaped supports holding up the spans outside the bows. Even with these supports the near span is visibly sagging. In DaVinci's design that area was to be filled with masonry, I hope they do something other than leave those inappropriate supports in place.
If you look at the model, you can see that the sag is part of the design. I'd be interested to know how this would have been done with stone, and without rebar:).
You cannot make your money on licensing because if you try to do that, your competition makes a cheaper clone.
That is what they're doing, however. They have a dual licensing scheme that allows customers to incorporate the db software into proprietary products. They are targetting the embedded market, where companies usually do not want to release their source code. You're right, though, if someone came along and made a BSD licensed clone, that would probably kill them. However, if they make the best available product for the price, they will probably continue to make money. It sounds like they have something good going, they have made profits without any outside investors since they began and have continued to grow. They have only 13 employees. This is quite different from failed companies like Eazel that got tons of venture capital and blew it all in one shot. They're making money on their merits, not on open source hype.
WHAT activity? Have any apps that WORK shipped? Can anyone use Linux on the desktop yet?
I wasn't specifically referring to Linux, I was talking about FreeBSD, where I can subsribe to the freebsd-current mailing list and most definitely see a lot of activity and development going on. Personally, I find the development of the OS itself more interesting than most of the apps that run on it.
For example, I run KDE as my desktop. It pretty much stays out of my way, and has 95% of the features I need. I'm typing this message from Konqueror, which I consider near the quality of Internet Explorer and better than any version of Netscape. I would consider that to be software that WORKS. But I don't follow the development of KDE very closely because I don't find it too interesting. It's the operating system that interests me. That's why I said I wouldn't run Beos, because I wouldn't be able to view the details of its development.
Open Source DOESN'T WORK because there is no INCENTIVE to get anything DONE!
Your statement is far too sweeping and shows your trollish nature. I think the amount of progress that has been made to create KDE in such a short amount of time alone proves that you are wrong. Open source may not work in all situations, and it is certainly no guarantee of quality software, but it does work sometimes. The same can be said of proprietary software. Not all proprietary software is successful, is it?
No one gets PAID for their work.
There are many people hired to work on FreeBSD, Redhat, and other projects.
I tried out the free version of Beos awhile ago, and I thought it was very cool. I liked how the desktop seemed to Just Work(tm), and things seemed integrated. The unix-y aspects of it were kind of strange, but nice to have around. However, since I use FreeBSD as my primary OS, I would find it difficult to move away from an open source OS with all the activity and development surrounding it. I like it that I can follow in detail what is happening on the development level. That's why Beos never excited me too much, even though I thought it was nifty.
Now, with these new Beos clone projects starting, it's conceivable that in time I could migrate over to using one of these OSes (I personally lean towards the OpenBeos project), at least part time. The idea to use the Linux kernel is probably a smart one, although as someone on osnews.com commented, it sounds kind of "messy". I bet they'll have something usable up and running a lot sooner than OpenBeos though.
I've played around with Atheos as well, which borrows ideas from Beos, but the source code looks kinda ugly, and the development is tightly controlled by one person. I can't feel at home on an OS like that. It's a neat project, but only time will tell if it amounts to anything really usable. I wonder the same about these Beos projects.
...X will never be replaced as the basic GUI layer for Linux/UNIX operating systems. No such attempt has ever caught on (and there have been a number of them), and none ever will...
That's a pretty narrow and short sighted statement if you ask me. As if X were the only networking protocol out there. Not to mention, there is already an X server running on top of this thing.
My only worry about DirectFB is that it runs on Linux only. I've played with it on Linux before and I thought it was pretty cool, although quite immature yet, but I normally run FreeBSD. If this can't be ported to FreeBSD and other non-Linux platforms such as Solaris, then it may not stand much chance of being widely used.
It's good to see the progress that KDE has made, and in such a short amount of time. It seems well designed and has lots of great features. I remember how impressed I was with KDE when I first saw it. It was version 1.1 running on FreeBSD 3.2, a rock solid combination.
The 2.x series is much better in terms of usability than was 1.x, but it lacks one major thing that 1.x had: stability. With 2.x, I get occasional (much too frequent) Konqueror crashes and Noatun crashes. 2.x is also a little on the slow side. I'd really like to see it slimmed down and optimized. Of course, now that they're already planning the release of 3.x, maybe the 2.x series will just end up as the interim between the great debut and the greatness that lies ahead in 3.0.
Anyway, happy birthday KDE, you're the greatest of the Unix desktops!
No, they don't move faster than the speed of light. The light from those stars moves at the speed of light, naturally. But when the star is billions of light years away, it takes billions of years for that light to reach us. Hence, the light we see from these distant objects is light that is only now reaching us after billions of years traveling through space. We can't see what they look like in the present, only the past.
Since the article mentions there is already a vaccine for this, why is there talk that this could be used to create a vaccine? Why would we need another?
The scientists were saying they knew that the bacteria modified itself and they even knew that it did it 1500 years ago. How do they know that? Would anyone with some knowledge of this care to speculate?
No joke. I once worked on a dairy farm where all the cow shit from the barn was scraped down into a big tank underneath where there was plenty of methane a-brewin'. That methane could have easily powered all or a good portion of the entire farm. I've read books on how to set up a system like that. Sorry, I don't remember any titles.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, why isn't window management a part of the X server? Look at all the resources that go into the writing of window managers. There are scores of window managers, and they all really do the same thing. Okay, so WindowMaker's titlebars look different than sawfish's titlebars. The look of a window border would be better served by having an advanced built-in theme engine, rather than everyone having to create a new wm just to get the look they want. Window management should be something that Just Happens. After all, there is nothing special about putting windows on a screen. All of the other things that includes such as menus and docks are outside of the scope of window management.
In short, X is too low level and it needs a lot of things built in that are now floating around as extensions and outside applications.
So how do you keep the protons and the anti-protons from meeting?
This is a rather arrogant attitude that I find annoying. These books were written long ago before there even was such a thing as a "nerd". My grandma, who was a tough Montana pioneer woman, liked Tolkien's books. In the 60s, the Tolkien books were very popular among college students. Where is it written that Lord of the Rings was made for nerds?
The sad part is, he's the only one asking questions like this, and no one is listening except the choir.
You didn't read what he said. He said if the maintainer of vim cannot be reached then you no longer have to show your changes.
I just wish my esc key wasn't way up there. It needs to be in the caps lock position.
I have solved this problem. I remapped my keyboard to swap the Control and Caps Lock keys. Now, I can just hit Control-[, the equivalent of Escape and easy on the fingers. The reason I didn't switch the Caps Lock with the Escape key is because I use Control for a lot of other things and I occasionally like to fire up emacs.
I'm glad to hear this. And thanks for being so level headed even though I kind of flew off the handle. ;)
I noticed in one shot of the control panel, there was the ability to customize "Sawfish Window Manager". Okay, I'll start my rant. Remember awhile back when gnome did their usability study? Haven't they learned anything? How many users know, or even need to know what a window manager is? How many users know, or need to know, what a sawfish window manager is? Instead you could have a couple of separate entries like "Change Window Decorations" and "Change Window Behavior". That ought to cover any relevant window management issues. This business of having more than one choice of window managers is really silly anyway for a desktop environment. This is treated as a selling point! It's not. Window managers are for people who don't like desktop environments and want complete control. Make this shit transparent to people! For a company like Ximian who obviously has visions of taking over the world, this ought to be a piece of cake.
Kde is equally guilty of this sin. When you change your desktop theme, the entire desktop should change. The window borders, the widgets, the background, the taskbar, everything. But no. In kde, changing the theme doesn't change the window border. You have to select that separately. As well, they give you the option of changing the "style" in addition to the two options "theme" and "window border". In gnome, it's a little better. You can change your theme. But it doesn't affect the window borders. You have to customize "Sawfish Window Manager" to do that. At that point, however, Joe User has already given up.
Starting your scripts with #!/bin/bash shows that you live in a Linux-centric world. No other OS puts bash under /bin. Since there's normally a link from bash to sh, it really makes sense for compatibility reasons to use #!/bin/sh. Of course, if you use bash-specific features in your scripts, your scripts won't be portable anyway and it doesn't really matter, I suppose.
I'm not going to totally knock Redhat, Mandrake & Co, but we already have what they provide. Connectiva is not providing anything new, aside from being predominantly non-english. Now we need a NEW choice, because there is nothing yet out there that really anyone can install and use. That means a very limited set of the population, the geek set, has access to a HUGE number of distros and choices. But what about the rest of the people? Where are their choices?
I read the review for this, and it sounds pretty ho-hum. The conclusion states that it's fast and stable...well, it's running the same software as all the other 10,000 distros out there. What is it that makes it particularly fast and stable by comparison?
The other thing that really bothers me is that this sounds like it has virtually the same features as all the other big names: Graphical install, easy to set up...except it gives too many goddamned options! I would like to see a distro that is a coherent whole, not a mishmash of every possible choice. I mean, it gives a choice between 2.2 and 2.4 kernels! There is not a non-geek in this world who knows or cares what that means. Nor do they care whether is runs KDE or GNOME. It ought to customize one or the other to be the Connectiva desktop, thus making a product that's unique to them, perhaps adding to the KDE control panel the ability to configure everything on the system in one place. Instead they give you a choice of three desktops!
Does the world need another distribution that caters only to geeks?
<
By the time the hurd is stable and featureful enough for everyone to use, we'll all be using 20GHZ machines. At that point, it may be worth the loss of speed.
With this in mind, try to name one single case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable.
Wow, I'm amazed you can't think of one case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable. That takes a determined lack of imagination.Here's a quick example off the top of my head of a company who could never survive by making free software. For highly specialized applications that have a very small market, it really doesn't make sense to be pushing free software.
Now you will begin to see what RMS is getting at.
Well, I understand what RMS is getting at, because I have read his writings: he wants there to be no such thing as proprietary software. That's fine for him, but not everyone shares his vision. No matter how much philosophizing he does on the subject, my definition of freedom will probably always conflict with his. This is my right. I fear that if his vision were the dominant one, I would no longer have this right.
If you look at the model, you can see that the sag is part of the design. I'd be interested to know how this would have been done with stone, and without rebar :).
That is what they're doing, however. They have a dual licensing scheme that allows customers to incorporate the db software into proprietary products. They are targetting the embedded market, where companies usually do not want to release their source code. You're right, though, if someone came along and made a BSD licensed clone, that would probably kill them. However, if they make the best available product for the price, they will probably continue to make money. It sounds like they have something good going, they have made profits without any outside investors since they began and have continued to grow. They have only 13 employees. This is quite different from failed companies like Eazel that got tons of venture capital and blew it all in one shot. They're making money on their merits, not on open source hype.
I wasn't specifically referring to Linux, I was talking about FreeBSD, where I can subsribe to the freebsd-current mailing list and most definitely see a lot of activity and development going on. Personally, I find the development of the OS itself more interesting than most of the apps that run on it.
For example, I run KDE as my desktop. It pretty much stays out of my way, and has 95% of the features I need. I'm typing this message from Konqueror, which I consider near the quality of Internet Explorer and better than any version of Netscape. I would consider that to be software that WORKS. But I don't follow the development of KDE very closely because I don't find it too interesting. It's the operating system that interests me. That's why I said I wouldn't run Beos, because I wouldn't be able to view the details of its development.
Open Source DOESN'T WORK because there is no INCENTIVE to get anything DONE!
Your statement is far too sweeping and shows your trollish nature. I think the amount of progress that has been made to create KDE in such a short amount of time alone proves that you are wrong. Open source may not work in all situations, and it is certainly no guarantee of quality software, but it does work sometimes. The same can be said of proprietary software. Not all proprietary software is successful, is it?
No one gets PAID for their work.
There are many people hired to work on FreeBSD, Redhat, and other projects.
Now, with these new Beos clone projects starting, it's conceivable that in time I could migrate over to using one of these OSes (I personally lean towards the OpenBeos project), at least part time. The idea to use the Linux kernel is probably a smart one, although as someone on osnews.com commented, it sounds kind of "messy". I bet they'll have something usable up and running a lot sooner than OpenBeos though.
I've played around with Atheos as well, which borrows ideas from Beos, but the source code looks kinda ugly, and the development is tightly controlled by one person. I can't feel at home on an OS like that. It's a neat project, but only time will tell if it amounts to anything really usable. I wonder the same about these Beos projects.
That's a pretty narrow and short sighted statement if you ask me. As if X were the only networking protocol out there. Not to mention, there is already an X server running on top of this thing.
My only worry about DirectFB is that it runs on Linux only. I've played with it on Linux before and I thought it was pretty cool, although quite immature yet, but I normally run FreeBSD. If this can't be ported to FreeBSD and other non-Linux platforms such as Solaris, then it may not stand much chance of being widely used.
The 2.x series is much better in terms of usability than was 1.x, but it lacks one major thing that 1.x had: stability. With 2.x, I get occasional (much too frequent) Konqueror crashes and Noatun crashes. 2.x is also a little on the slow side. I'd really like to see it slimmed down and optimized. Of course, now that they're already planning the release of 3.x, maybe the 2.x series will just end up as the interim between the great debut and the greatness that lies ahead in 3.0.
Anyway, happy birthday KDE, you're the greatest of the Unix desktops!
Naturally. I mean, he does have a mustache, you know.
No, they don't move faster than the speed of light. The light from those stars moves at the speed of light, naturally. But when the star is billions of light years away, it takes billions of years for that light to reach us. Hence, the light we see from these distant objects is light that is only now reaching us after billions of years traveling through space. We can't see what they look like in the present, only the past.
FreeOS is another good place to find out about these kind of operating systems.
I'm really interested to know why the FreeBSD Foundation doesn't own the trademark to FreeBSD!
The scientists were saying they knew that the bacteria modified itself and they even knew that it did it 1500 years ago. How do they know that? Would anyone with some knowledge of this care to speculate?
No joke. I once worked on a dairy farm where all the cow shit from the barn was scraped down into a big tank underneath where there was plenty of methane a-brewin'. That methane could have easily powered all or a good portion of the entire farm. I've read books on how to set up a system like that. Sorry, I don't remember any titles.