You don't have to consider using Photoshop if you're comfortable with GIMP.
However, you can consider this; without Photoshop, GIMP may not have been developed (the way it was), just as Killustrator-->Illustrator and GNUStep-->NeXTStep...
I'm not saying GIMP is a clone or anything, but that Photoshop created the market that GIMP lives in right now.
Let me clarify what I meant. Light of differing wavelength would not be in phase and see some spread. If this were a continuous laser, then only the wavefront and tail of the beam would show this spread, but for the average case the spread would not be of consequence. If this were not a continuous laser (perhaps all semiconductor lasers are continuous lasers, I don't know) but fired in pulses, if the pulse width were sufficiently short, you might see each frequency occupy a different part of the pulse.
Monocromacity is not an inherent property of lasers.
It's a limitation we could not overcome until now.
Lasers are coherent.
Lucent has created a multichromatic coherent laser.
Simply put, multiple quantum wells laze at different frequencies. Stacks of these multiple quantum wells create multiple lasers in one cavity, if I understand it correctly.
Each frequency is indeed coherent. You get multiple frequencies, however, in one resonant cavity. I'm guessing here, but the reason why you don't see each frequency shooting emitting from the cavity at different times is because it's either a continuous laser, or because the energy spread between the different colors is much smaller than the energy of activation to escape the cavity.
In either case, an analogy would be to place multiple crystals stacked together into one laser, and stimulating all of them. If you assume that there are no diffraction problems, and that they all emit at roughly the same period, you have a very crude multi-chromatic laser.
It's like claiming: Netscape is DEAD. Supplanted. No longer important. Be is DEAD. Supplanted. No longer important. OS/2 is DEAD. Supplanted. No longer important.
Not so, Carbon apps would run just fine in a Mac OS X for Intel. Most of the applications running natively on Mac OS X are Carbon apps, not Cocoa apps; for example Microsoft Office for X is a Carbon app. Perhaps you are thinking of Classic which won't be part of Mac OS X for Intel?
Carbon is an API, arguably one Apple could cleanly support on on OS X86. You're right, I confused Classic apps with Carbon apps. So theoretically Apple would provide the Carbon library for OS X and everyone would have to provide a 'fat' binary. So Carbon and Cocoa apps would indeed run on OS X86.
Actually there is one enormous advantage for Apple of a Mac OS X for Intel that only runs on Apple built hardware. They can use fast, relatively cheap x86/x96 CPUs. Currently the PowerPC CPUs - with the greatest respect to Steve's marketing snow job - are at about 2 years behind Intel CPUs in terms of performance for a given price point. This is hurting Apple more than it cares to admit.
That's only an advantage if x86 CPUs in a laptop running at 6W are faster than PPC CPUs... On the desktop, you may be right, but only if x86's *future* roadmap is brighter than PPC's *future* roadmap. I'm not in any position to argue that right now. Still, taking all four products into the equation, x86 is not an advantage.
Frankly put, why should us linux-using folks give a rats ass if the Mac does well or poorly? I don't see how Mac marketshare or 'cooperation' with the open-source crowd could be of any benefit whatsoever to Linux. To Apple, yes; to Linux, no.
If the Mac [Apple] does well, it means more Unix base. It means more people not under the Windows hegemony. It means more users of Open Source (BSD, GPL, or otherwise) software. It means more devlopers of Open Source. It means more testing and debugging of Open Source software. It means more Open Source software: Darwin Streaming Server, Darwin (which is more than just BSD), and OpenPlay (which is a network interface). Apple Open SourceApple isn't and will never be a competitor. Apple has zero chance of negatively affecting the the development or use of Linux. And Apple has nothing to offer Linux. If Apple goes belly-up tomorrow it would have no effect at all on the development of the kernel, KDE, Gnome, various apps, etc.
Everyone is a competitor; competitor for users, money, developers, and products. Every engineer at Netscape writing Mac code is an engineer not writing Linux code. Every engineer patching bugs or adding Altivec optimizations to Open Source code is an engineer not doing something similar for non Apple hardware.
If Apple goes belly up, Linux loses developments of things like Firewire (which Apple helped to develop), 802.11b (which Apple arguably foisted on the world over Intel's slower wireless networking standard), USB (PCs are still sold with PS/2 ports and peripherals). Arguably, Apple was the impetus for the WIMP paradigm that GNOME and KDE follow, as well as TrueType and PostScript (though one is Apple's and one is Adobe's), there wouldn't be GIMP (without the original PhotoShop), or Killustrator (without Illustrator), or *any* of the Office suites without the first original Word. It's fair to say that the Apple of today is a different beast than the Apple of 20 years ago, but one could arguably extrapolate into the future what Apple may offer us (iDVD, iPhoto, iMovie, iPod, etc) and how they may change the computing landscape for everyone, including Linux users.
I don't like Macs any more than I like Windows. In fact, I'd say I like the OS less because it's even more restrictive than Windows is (you have to buy very specific hardware, all approved by Apple, and most of it overly expensive). I see no justification or need for cooperation between Linux developers and Apple.
Fair enough. Your opinion and your voice.
Disclaimer: I would love OS X on Intel. Since I can't have it, I bought a Mac.
Let's see if I can proactively shoot down all the OS X on Intel crowd.
Here's my base assumptions: Everything Apple does has to be advantageous (barring idiocy)
Advantageous to itself
Advantageous to it's current installed base
Advantageous to it's target market
Porting OS X to x86 in of itself implies several questions:
Dual architecture support Legacy support (Classic) Clones Hardware limitations
So let's answer the questions.
If Apple ports OS X to x86, is it advantageous to itself?
Apple gains more options. Options are good. Apple is burdened with more support variables. Complexity is bad. Apple gets more thorough testing. Diversity is good. Conclusion: Existence of OS X86 is good.
If Apple ports OS X to x86, is it advantageous to customers? If it means producing a new line of x86 hardware:
Customers get more choice. Choice is good. Performance is a question, but supposedly better. Better performance is good. Apple is burdened with more support variables. Complexity is bad. Apple gets more thorough testing. Diversity is good. Developers have to undergo another transition, unless they use Cocoa. Loss of developer support is bad. Virtual PC would perform better under OS X86. Better performance is better. Conclusion: No change for Apple.
If it means releasing the OS only:
Customers get more choice. Choice is good. Apple is burdened with *many* more support variables. Complexity is bad. Apple gets less thorough testing. Complexity is bad. Developers would have another platform to support. Diversity, while good, is expensive. Expect no software except through Cocoa or VirtualPC. Apple gets more customers. Good. Apple sells cheaper product; lower revenue, lower margins? Arguably bad. Conclusion: Apple loses.
If it means doing both: Combine both situations, and Apple loses. Not to mention that in order to support the current market base, Apple would need to emulate the 68k under Classic, which itself would need to be ported, and which probably also requires PPC emulation.
If Apple ports OS X to x86, is it advantageous to it's target market?
Flat out: No. Target market loses the whole widget equation. Software, OS, and hardware are no longer integrated. Ease of use is hampered. Design decisions are hampered by lowest common denominator effect, unless they release their own PCs, and then they gain no advantage.
How about dual architecture support? Apple would have to support older G3s, new G3s and G4s, and new x86, not even mentioning the option/headache of AMD vs Intel. This is a headache for no real gain for itself at the questionable gain of performance for it's customers.
How about legacy support (Classic)? More emulation! Unless the new hardware can emulate PowerPC without a performance loss, users will see sluggishness in all parts of the OS not optimized for the new hardware, especially the PPC native bits. This doesn't even mention emulation of the Classic OS under the new hardware... Emulating an older processor (PPC), which itself emulated an even older processor (68k) as well as emulating parts of the older OS (Classic)... what performance benefit, again?
How about clones? If the only difference between a Mac x86 and a standard PC is the OS + bits of logic, how soon until someone reverse engineers and releases, ala Compaq-IBM, a clone and steal entirely the Apple market?
How about hardware limitations? How about the fact that power consumption and form factor limits Apple's ability to create nifty designs? No more 1" laptops that run for 4 hours! No more fanless designs! *Note, Apple *could* use the Tualatin, but then get hobbled by high price and low performance.
I much overestimated the destructive capability of several thousand anti-hydrogen.
That aside, I'm still curious how they plan to get rid of the stuff, especially as they refined the production capabilities and are able to create more of the stuff?
Unless I'm much mistaken, an antiparticle is completely neutral; one anti-proton of negative charge, one positron of positive charge, and one anti-neutron of neutral charge. From a distance it should look identical to a standard hydrogen atom.
The only way they can test it is if they fire off a single hydrogen atom in there and note the massive explosion followed by all the other anti-particles flying out of containment and then destroying the rest of the normal matter in anti-matter-matter annihilation.
For all they know, firing a stream of positrons at anti-protons created normal atoms (since this is all theory)
What I wonder is how they're gonna get rid of several thousand anti-hydrogen!
I can almost imagine someone writing a server side dynamic javascript generator on Slashdot in order to disseminate SETI data to web browsers to crunch (albeit very tenuously) to be uploaded again whenever someone hits 'submit':)
I did take VLSI and VHDL courses in college, so I wouldn't be lining up transistors so much as connecting wires between functional units and designing functional units:P
How is this different than saying:
"StarOffice run's on Sun's Java compatibility layer. This isn't the same as running on Microsoft's Windows Win32-based libraries and not at all like running on raw DOS.
So yeah, it's running on DOS, however pretty much entirely within a proprietary Microsoft-Java compatibility library that is Windows specific and itself unlikely and probably unable to be ported to other Windows flavors."
Well, that analogy breaks in that Java exists on other Windows flavors:)
If the monitor were touchscreen and allowed navigation of documents via point and follow, without a mouse or keyboard interface.
A hyperlink, after all, is only a button without the IMG tag, and a button is really an esc key without the white silk screened text and membrane-spring tactile mechanism...
Any mutually beneficial 'win-win' situation involves the exchange of value.
So how are you helping Apple again?
Apple helped me, for sure.
I have a kickass laptop, a BSD based OS, good networking functionality, wireless networking, movie, photo, and music applications, good access to BSD and GNU tools, a good developer environment, a pleasant user environment, AppleWorks, Quicktime, DivX, Aqua, Quartz, Sorenson, free email, free online disk space, free webpage, and hopefully RSN, MPEG4, SMB print capability, SMB network browsing, and kickass power management features.
A mathematical or inductive proof on data quality, access, copy protection, etc.
Inductive proof. We'll work with a single bit, and assume that it scales to multiple bits.
A single bit exists on a medium We'll use a stone tablet, and assume that it scales to thin wafers of aluminum encased in plastic.
A consumer who owns, for legal purposes we'll use own and not lease or license, this stone tablet can see the bit and can identify it as either a one or zero.
Said consumer can then copy the bit to another tablet, assuming they own a tablet and chisel. Or, theoretically, a laser and a wafer of aluminum encased in plastic.
If the consumer can see the bit, nothing can stop the consumer from copying the bit, short of a man with a knife standing over the second blank tablet. Or, theoretically, a man in a suit with a pile of papers in his hand.
I haven't found that to be true, at least. From all accounts I've heard, OS X is a remarkably* stable OS.
*Remarkable for a 1.0 product.
*Remarkable because it's a Mac.
*Remarkable because people haven't yet gotten used to a desktop OS capable of running for weeks without crashing.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, sure, but if you're comfortable with GIMP, you're not going to be using CMYK, Pantone, ColorSync, etc.
No need to trivialize what GIMP users do or don't do (like pay the rent)
You don't have to consider using Photoshop if you're comfortable with GIMP.
However, you can consider this; without Photoshop, GIMP may not have been developed (the way it was), just as Killustrator-->Illustrator and GNUStep-->NeXTStep...
I'm not saying GIMP is a clone or anything, but that Photoshop created the market that GIMP lives in right now.
Let me clarify what I meant. Light of differing wavelength would not be in phase and see some spread. If this were a continuous laser, then only the wavefront and tail of the beam would show this spread, but for the average case the spread would not be of consequence. If this were not a continuous laser (perhaps all semiconductor lasers are continuous lasers, I don't know) but fired in pulses, if the pulse width were sufficiently short, you might see each frequency occupy a different part of the pulse.
Am I thinking about a non-issue?
Monocromacity is not an inherent property of lasers.
It's a limitation we could not overcome until now.
Lasers are coherent.
Lucent has created a multichromatic coherent laser.
Simply put, multiple quantum wells laze at different frequencies. Stacks of these multiple quantum wells create multiple lasers in one cavity, if I understand it correctly.
Each frequency is indeed coherent. You get multiple frequencies, however, in one resonant cavity. I'm guessing here, but the reason why you don't see each frequency shooting emitting from the cavity at different times is because it's either a continuous laser, or because the energy spread between the different colors is much smaller than the energy of activation to escape the cavity.
In either case, an analogy would be to place multiple crystals stacked together into one laser, and stimulating all of them. If you assume that there are no diffraction problems, and that they all emit at roughly the same period, you have a very crude multi-chromatic laser.
I voted Browne, Libertarian. I just think that I value the food and happiness of my soldiers out in the field.
It's a conscious decision to spend money on our soldier's comfort and happiness. I can advocate that.
I mean, it's not any more wasteful than spending money designing and creating newer and bigger SUVs or creating and marketing XBoxes.
Well, Quake 2 is open source :)
It's like claiming:
Netscape is DEAD. Supplanted. No longer important.
Be is DEAD. Supplanted. No longer important.
OS/2 is DEAD. Supplanted. No longer important.
Who cares about the Microsoft trial?
Not so, Carbon apps would run just fine in a Mac OS X for Intel. Most of the applications running natively on Mac OS X are Carbon apps, not Cocoa apps; for example Microsoft Office for X is a Carbon app. Perhaps you are thinking of Classic which won't be part of Mac OS X for Intel?
Carbon is an API, arguably one Apple could cleanly support on on OS X86. You're right, I confused Classic apps with Carbon apps. So theoretically Apple would provide the Carbon library for OS X and everyone would have to provide a 'fat' binary. So Carbon and Cocoa apps would indeed run on OS X86.
Actually there is one enormous advantage for Apple of a Mac OS X for Intel that only runs on Apple built hardware. They can use fast, relatively cheap x86/x96 CPUs. Currently the PowerPC CPUs - with the greatest respect to Steve's marketing snow job - are at about 2 years behind Intel CPUs in terms of performance for a given price point. This is hurting Apple more than it cares to admit.
That's only an advantage if x86 CPUs in a laptop running at 6W are faster than PPC CPUs... On the desktop, you may be right, but only if x86's *future* roadmap is brighter than PPC's *future* roadmap. I'm not in any position to argue that right now. Still, taking all four products into the equation, x86 is not an advantage.
Frankly put, why should us linux-using folks give a rats ass if the Mac does well or poorly? I don't see how Mac marketshare or 'cooperation' with the open-source crowd could be of any benefit whatsoever to Linux. To Apple, yes; to Linux, no. If the Mac [Apple] does well, it means more Unix base. It means more people not under the Windows hegemony. It means more users of Open Source (BSD, GPL, or otherwise) software. It means more devlopers of Open Source. It means more testing and debugging of Open Source software. It means more Open Source software: Darwin Streaming Server, Darwin (which is more than just BSD), and OpenPlay (which is a network interface). Apple Open Source Apple isn't and will never be a competitor. Apple has zero chance of negatively affecting the the development or use of Linux. And Apple has nothing to offer Linux. If Apple goes belly-up tomorrow it would have no effect at all on the development of the kernel, KDE, Gnome, various apps, etc. Everyone is a competitor; competitor for users, money, developers, and products. Every engineer at Netscape writing Mac code is an engineer not writing Linux code. Every engineer patching bugs or adding Altivec optimizations to Open Source code is an engineer not doing something similar for non Apple hardware. If Apple goes belly up, Linux loses developments of things like Firewire (which Apple helped to develop), 802.11b (which Apple arguably foisted on the world over Intel's slower wireless networking standard), USB (PCs are still sold with PS/2 ports and peripherals). Arguably, Apple was the impetus for the WIMP paradigm that GNOME and KDE follow, as well as TrueType and PostScript (though one is Apple's and one is Adobe's), there wouldn't be GIMP (without the original PhotoShop), or Killustrator (without Illustrator), or *any* of the Office suites without the first original Word. It's fair to say that the Apple of today is a different beast than the Apple of 20 years ago, but one could arguably extrapolate into the future what Apple may offer us (iDVD, iPhoto, iMovie, iPod, etc) and how they may change the computing landscape for everyone, including Linux users. I don't like Macs any more than I like Windows. In fact, I'd say I like the OS less because it's even more restrictive than Windows is (you have to buy very specific hardware, all approved by Apple, and most of it overly expensive). I see no justification or need for cooperation between Linux developers and Apple. Fair enough. Your opinion and your voice.
Disclaimer: I would love OS X on Intel. Since I can't have it, I bought a Mac.
Let's see if I can proactively shoot down all the OS X on Intel crowd.
Here's my base assumptions:
Everything Apple does has to be advantageous (barring idiocy)
Advantageous to itself
Advantageous to it's current installed base
Advantageous to it's target market
Porting OS X to x86 in of itself implies several questions:
Dual architecture support
Legacy support (Classic)
Clones
Hardware limitations
So let's answer the questions.
If Apple ports OS X to x86, is it advantageous to itself?
Apple gains more options. Options are good. Apple is burdened with more support variables. Complexity is bad. Apple gets more thorough testing. Diversity is good. Conclusion: Existence of OS X86 is good.
If Apple ports OS X to x86, is it advantageous to customers?
If it means producing a new line of x86 hardware:
Customers get more choice. Choice is good. Performance is a question, but supposedly better. Better performance is good. Apple is burdened with more support variables. Complexity is bad. Apple gets more thorough testing. Diversity is good. Developers have to undergo another transition, unless they use Cocoa. Loss of developer support is bad. Virtual PC would perform better under OS X86. Better performance is better. Conclusion: No change for Apple.
If it means releasing the OS only:
Customers get more choice. Choice is good. Apple is burdened with *many* more support variables. Complexity is bad. Apple gets less thorough testing. Complexity is bad. Developers would have another platform to support. Diversity, while good, is expensive. Expect no software except through Cocoa or VirtualPC. Apple gets more customers. Good. Apple sells cheaper product; lower revenue, lower margins? Arguably bad. Conclusion: Apple loses.
If it means doing both:
Combine both situations, and Apple loses. Not to mention that in order to support the current market base, Apple would need to emulate the 68k under Classic, which itself would need to be ported, and which probably also requires PPC emulation.
If Apple ports OS X to x86, is it advantageous to it's target market?
Flat out: No. Target market loses the whole widget equation. Software, OS, and hardware are no longer integrated. Ease of use is hampered. Design decisions are hampered by lowest common denominator effect, unless they release their own PCs, and then they gain no advantage.
How about dual architecture support?
Apple would have to support older G3s, new G3s and G4s, and new x86, not even mentioning the option/headache of AMD vs Intel. This is a headache for no real gain for itself at the questionable gain of performance for it's customers.
How about legacy support (Classic)?
More emulation! Unless the new hardware can emulate PowerPC without a performance loss, users will see sluggishness in all parts of the OS not optimized for the new hardware, especially the PPC native bits. This doesn't even mention emulation of the Classic OS under the new hardware... Emulating an older processor (PPC), which itself emulated an even older processor (68k) as well as emulating parts of the older OS (Classic)... what performance benefit, again?
How about clones?
If the only difference between a Mac x86 and a standard PC is the OS + bits of logic, how soon until someone reverse engineers and releases, ala Compaq-IBM, a clone and steal entirely the Apple market?
How about hardware limitations?
How about the fact that power consumption and form factor limits Apple's ability to create nifty designs? No more 1" laptops that run for 4 hours! No more fanless designs! *Note, Apple *could* use the Tualatin, but then get hobbled by high price and low performance.
I much overestimated the destructive capability of several thousand anti-hydrogen.
That aside, I'm still curious how they plan to get rid of the stuff, especially as they refined the production capabilities and are able to create more of the stuff?
Unless I'm much mistaken, an antiparticle is completely neutral; one anti-proton of negative charge, one positron of positive charge, and one anti-neutron of neutral charge. From a distance it should look identical to a standard hydrogen atom.
The only way they can test it is if they fire off a single hydrogen atom in there and note the massive explosion followed by all the other anti-particles flying out of containment and then destroying the rest of the normal matter in anti-matter-matter annihilation.
For all they know, firing a stream of positrons at anti-protons created normal atoms (since this is all theory)
What I wonder is how they're gonna get rid of several thousand anti-hydrogen!
I can almost imagine someone writing a server side dynamic javascript generator on Slashdot in order to disseminate SETI data to web browsers to crunch (albeit very tenuously) to be uploaded again whenever someone hits 'submit' :)
I did take VLSI and VHDL courses in college, so I wouldn't be lining up transistors so much as connecting wires between functional units and designing functional units :P
So many orthogonal concepts in your short single sentence.
Capability to build a computer != capability to install OS
Clean OS != reinstall OS
Of course, it's an empty statement from me since I can build a computer from scratch, install an OS of many sorts.
Not with Applescript, bash, telnet, and a bunch of other remote technologies :)
;D
Hmm, maybe I should install Timbuktu, just in case
How is this different than saying:
:)
"StarOffice run's on Sun's Java compatibility layer. This isn't the same as running on Microsoft's Windows Win32-based libraries and not at all like running on raw DOS.
So yeah, it's running on DOS, however pretty much entirely within a proprietary Microsoft-Java compatibility library that is Windows specific and itself unlikely and probably unable to be ported to other Windows flavors."
Well, that analogy breaks in that Java exists on other Windows flavors
If the monitor were touchscreen and allowed navigation of documents via point and follow, without a mouse or keyboard interface.
A hyperlink, after all, is only a button without the IMG tag, and a button is really an esc key without the white silk screened text and membrane-spring tactile mechanism...
Any mutually beneficial 'win-win' situation involves the exchange of value.
So how are you helping Apple again?
Apple helped me, for sure.
I have a kickass laptop, a BSD based OS, good networking functionality, wireless networking, movie, photo, and music applications, good access to BSD and GNU tools, a good developer environment, a pleasant user environment, AppleWorks, Quicktime, DivX, Aqua, Quartz, Sorenson, free email, free online disk space, free webpage, and hopefully RSN, MPEG4, SMB print capability, SMB network browsing, and kickass power management features.
He doesn't own a patent, he's just showing prior art; that hyperlinking is really a case of 'escape' execution.
A mathematical or inductive proof on data quality, access, copy protection, etc.
Inductive proof. We'll work with a single bit, and assume that it scales to multiple bits.
A single bit exists on a medium We'll use a stone tablet, and assume that it scales to thin wafers of aluminum encased in plastic.
A consumer who owns, for legal purposes we'll use own and not lease or license, this stone tablet can see the bit and can identify it as either a one or zero.
Said consumer can then copy the bit to another tablet, assuming they own a tablet and chisel. Or, theoretically, a laser and a wafer of aluminum encased in plastic.
If the consumer can see the bit, nothing can stop the consumer from copying the bit, short of a man with a knife standing over the second blank tablet. Or, theoretically, a man in a suit with a pile of papers in his hand.
I haven't found that to be true, at least. From all accounts I've heard, OS X is a remarkably* stable OS.
*Remarkable for a 1.0 product.
*Remarkable because it's a Mac.
*Remarkable because people haven't yet gotten used to a desktop OS capable of running for weeks without crashing.
There's never been a focus on stability because until recently PCs weren't on 24/7.
Of course, that's changing, what with web servers and such.
On the other hand, are you willing to pay the price premium for a Unix desktop PC? Ala Apple, OS X, Darwin, BSD, etc?
Then don't complain about the reliability or lack of reliability.
:P
Original poster complained about stability.
Someone else mentioned Unix.
This poster mentioned OS X, as Unix on commodity hardware.
You reject it; fine, stick with Linux or Windows
There aren't exactly many competitors for a desktop Unix boxen, are there?