XFree would probably run faster than DirectFB would simply because DGA and Xv get to use video card drivers that recieve much more attention and are consequently better tuned.
That's a very narrow view. Who knows what the future holds? Currently XFree86 gets lots of attention, while Linux Framebuffer drivers do not. There is no reason this can't change.
I do like the remoteness of XFree, but other aspects are just plain bad. The most obvious problem with XFree is the inclusion of drivers. Every other driver I use in Linux is controlled by the kernel -- except for video. Why? There is nothing special about video that requires it to be separate. I should be able to just "insmod video.o" and install the driver. Fortunately, that's what the Linux Framebuffer is trying to correct. Video access is controlled by the kernel, and the display is served up on/dev/fb*.
This would ensure longevity in drivers. Right now, if we were to abandon XFree86, closed source X drivers would become worthless. This is why writing drivers for X is senseless. They should be written as kernel modules. This way, our display system is irrelevent. It could be DirectFB, X, or anything, and the driver stays the same.
The Linux Framebuffer also solves the permissions issue. To run an X server requires root access (so the executable is setuid root). The Linux Framebuffer, on the other hand, has permissions like any other 'device' (just chmod it) and you don't have to be root to use it! Yay! Maybe this fixes some security issues too? The Linux Framebuffer obsoletes svgalib in this regard as well.
Really, the Linux Framebuffer only brings good things. About the only counter to this argument is that not all other *nixes have framebuffers, and so it is the job of X to provide this. And to that, I say: Wrong! Time for these other *nixes to evolve. Linux should not be dragged down.
Please, move all driver development into the kernel realm, and call XFree86 finished. The only new things coming out of XFree are video drivers which have nothing to do with the X protocol anyway.
In short: X should not die, but X video drivers should.
Seriously. It looks like it could be a normal desktop windowing system. As it stands, you're right it looks like a total waste of effort for a bootloader, especially if they coded their own widgets.
Why are there options like "show window contents while dragging" ? This looks like the coders were having way too much fun. Currently, my bootloader (LILO) shows no more than a single line of text. It wouldn't surprise me if in the near future XOSL gets a tetris game.
until WINE gets in gear with better support, linux will NEVER replace windows as a workplace. even then it probably wont.
So what exactly are you getting at? It sounds like you mean any OS that can't run Windows apps perfectly won't be able to make headway, even if they run such apps perfectly. You know, even though I use Linux/KDE, I think I agree with you.
But then why even state the obvious? Are you just acknowledging Microsoft's dominance? Do you think this is not a problem? Or does none of that matter to you?
I don't think any computer user (regardless of OS choice) is denying that Microsoft holds a monopoly on desktop operating systems. However, there is nothing wrong with having hope in another OS. I'm doing my part contributing to free software, and I wish Linux the best.
i get more then enough frames in quake3/desent3/heavygear 2 (the only loki games i own) and i dont drop frame in video (even divX) and as i only have 400Mhz to play with i dont understand why ppl are think X is so slow.
It's not necessarily slow, I just think it's backwards to be adding "direct" support to X. It should be the other way around. Look at it this way, how often do people take advantage of X's remote ability? Less than 1% of the time, I assure you. With DirectFB, you wouldn't lose your ability to work remotely, it would just be an extension (the reverse of X basically, where it's _directness_ that is an extension). X is optimized for running over the network. DirectFB would be a desktop that's optimized for running locally, ie 99% of what most people are doing.
Now, about games. I read a quote on directfb.org someplace about a guy not satisfied with the current DirectFB X layer (for running X programs). Since it doesn't (or didn't at the time) support DRI/DGA, he couldn't play his games on DirectFB. So he said something like this, and I swear I'm not lying when I type this, "I guess I'll use DirectFB for my normal apps, and X for games." Tell me that isn't backwards!
We might see that happening in the near future now that Qt is available for Mac.
Qt has always worked between Windows/Unix, but big application companies (like say, Adobe) care more about Windows/Mac. AFAIK, Photoshop has two codebases, one for Windows and one for Mac. With Qt 3.0 they could reduce it to just one. Even though their original intention might be to just have Windows/Mac versions, this would place them "one compile away" from having a Linux version. They may or may not go the Linux route at first, but the option would be obviously there.
The source is only available if you have a MSVC++ license though, right? Qt works just like that too. I got full source code with my Qt/Windows license. However, since both sources are only available to license holders, they are effectively closed-source.
I did not realize you get MFC source with MSVC++ though, so thank you for pointing it out (I just now verified). I had thought it was always closed, even for developers.
This is a complete shameless plug for my application, but it is also a great example of how good of a crossplatform library Qt is.
Check out JabberCentral and you will see my client, "Psi", has both a Windows and Linux version. The programs are identical (all features are the same). By use of QSettings, application settings are stored in the registry on Windows and in a "dot" file on *nix. And the look&feel matches the OS.
The best part? All it took was a simple recompile. One source tree sure makes life easy.
Actually, they say it's because a GPL application cannot be linked to a closed source library. They say if you want to link your GPL app to Qt/Noncommercial, then you need to include an exception-clause in your license (this is similar to what Linus does to allow commercial dev on Linux. read the Linux license sometime, it's not pure GPL).
And no, you can't get around this by using the commercial Qt. You aren't allowed to redistribute the source with that either.
However, IMO this is a strange necessity. I've seen some MFC windows apps claiming to be GPL. After reading this thing about Qt though, I wonder if that is even possible. MFC is closed source. Hell, so is Windows. Does that mean that pure GPL applications on Windows are impossible? That any GPL Windows app is actually GPL-with-exception by default?
Technicalities aside, if someone releases a GPL MFC app, you are _not_ allowed to make modifications unless you have a valid MSVC++ license. Granted, you can get MSVC loads cheaper than Qt, but it's the same principle.
Anyway, all I'm saying is Qt on Windows is no less evil than MFC when it comes to GPL. It's just more expensive (but then, it's also way better).
What I hate about Nautilus (and other Linux file managers, for that matter, this ain't just a Nautulus problem) is that it tries to launch files upon clicking them once.
I believe this is to get us away from the old double-click paradigm. You won't double-click anywhere in KDE (except maybe in a listview widget like from Licq). If you want to make Konqueror behave more like Windows Explorer, try disabling single-click launch and "change cursor over icons" (that hand thingy). Now if only it were faster..
Now keeping this in mind, when you see such a person zealously proclaim that The Gimp is superior to Photoshop for graphic arts work...
First, I know a professional graphic artist, and the problem he has with the Gimp is mainly the UI. I'd imagine any "zealot" who recommends the Gimp is probably a fan of GTK and has no trouble getting around. Sorry, I don't use either program so I can't really can't elaborate. Second, how many people actually own Photoshop? Everyone recommending Photoshop is completely ignoring the fact that it costs hundreds of dollars. Maybe because no one pays for it? Hardly a fair comparison. It's funny how many people use Windows 2000 as their home desktop (and recommend it) yet did not pay for it. My theory is that it's a close second to Photoshop as the most pirated program. Folks, cost matters and should be part of your final decision. If someone can save hundreds of dollars by using the Gimp, then maybe they just might want to get used to the UI. Don't just toy with gimp for 30 seconds and say "ugh, I can't stand this. Time to reboot back to my pirated Win2k and Photoshop". Give it a chance.
Phew.:) * End of rant *
B: Bah! I don't _need_ to go to sites that that! F**k em!
Then I realize that "B" isn't someone who uses computers.
And what is a person supposed to do then? There are certain sites that you can't access if you're using a Mac. Should the person just throw the computer out and get a Windows box? People use what they use.
If you want to get rid of spam, replace SMTP. Create a system where addresses can be "authorized-only", similar to how ICQ can work: to receive mail from someone, you must authorize them to send to you.
I have considered this. It would take a total overhaul of the current mail system, perhaps replacing it with something like Jabber (in fact, I think it's possible to replace SMTP and POP3 with Jabber if you made the right wrapper programs). Then you could simply ignore messages from people that don't have a subscription to you. Of course, if the spammers were persistant enough they would just send subscription requests to you first, which makes the argument moot.
You could take it further by saying that you don't allow direct subscription requests, meaning your contacts would have to ask you permission in person or on a messageboard. This might be a bit much.:)
Isn't it quite amazing to read over that newsgroup post by Matthias Ettrich? It is probably the most ambitious post about a software project (that came true!) I've ever read. I wonder how people took it at first? Most probably laughed. Now look where it has gone. He wanted something to happen, and so he (and all those who joined him) worked towards the goal to _make_ it happen. Kind of like Torvalds and Linux. Truly inspirational!
In fact Unicode is certainly hard an painful to implement
Maybe for library programmers. I have been extremely impressed with the Qt library's handling of Unicode characters. The QString class is used across the board and supports full Unicode. My project, Psi can handle unicode everywhere (chat, nicknames), thanks to Qt. Heck, I didn't even know about this for the longest time. In fact, getting unicode chat over Jabber took just one extra function call:
QString::toUtf8();
I just use that before sending content or attributes to the Jabber XML stream. Qt's parser already converts incoming UTF-8 to Unicode. This was so amazingly easy to use from an "application coder"'s standpoint it's not even funny.
Of course, I can't speak any language other than English, so I personally won't be taking advantage of this. I know other people will though, and thankfully it was easy enough to put in.
I used to be a die-hard Netscape user, back during Win95 days. When I upgraded to Win98, I found IE 4.0 was sitting on my drive. I had already installed Netscape, but eventually I started using IE more often. Pretty soon I stopped using Netscape entirely.
Why did I like IE? First off, if it didn't come with the computer then I never would have used it. Second, it loaded FAST. And you know what? I _knew_ that it was because of preloading. But who cares? Why should that stop me? Bottom line is that it loaded faster than Netscape so I used it. I also used Outlook Express instead of Netscape mail. I ended up using that before I had installed Netscape, and I got used to it.
I consider myself a techie. But if I was able to fall into this trap then how the hell would your "average Joe" ever get out? Anytime Microsoft bundles an application with the OS, it will mean the _end_ of any competing applications. It may be user-friendly and convenient for the rest of us, but it destroys competition. This is truly a problematic situation, even if you are a Microsoft die-hard.
Linux distributions do contain a lot of bundled software. Take the latest version of any of the major distros and the number of packages included will put any Windows install to shame. However, this isn't quite the same problem as Windows software bundling. Linux distributions consist of tools coming from various sources, so there isn't this "master software vendor." Also, often times many different programs that do the same thing are included (how many email clients come with Slackware? I can count at least 6) Finally, there are many Linux distributions to choose from, so again you're not getting force-fed by the master software vendor.
Linux distributions areall about choice. Microsoft is not.
Qt is GPL. KDE libraries are LGPL. KDE apps are GPL.
I thought that Trolltech had finally pulled their head out of their ass when they got away from the QPL...I guess not.
Ok, this I really don't get. Would you rather they stayed with QPL? Or perhaps you would rather they chose a different alternative license instead of GPL. Let my try to guess. I'll start by picking the obvious one. You want Qt to be BSD or similarly licensed so that you can develop closed source apps, or libraries to aid in someone else's closed source development.
No, of course not. You are immensely anti-closed-source. That's why you don't like the QPL. It's not compatible with GPL, which RMS liked to rant about, thus you dislike QPL. Fine, Qt is now GPL.
So which is it? What do you have a problem with? At least say something more obvious like "I don't want Trolltech making money" or "Down with the GPL!" or something. Right now I am confused. Perhaps I lost your point somewhere between my couch cushions.
Has anyone else noticed that their special deals are always about to expire in the next day or two, and yet the offer itself doesn't change for weeks on end. Maybe someone should get them on deceptive advertising?
I don't think anyone could do anything about it. These types of schemes have been around forever. I still hear "call in the next 10 minutes, and receive..." in radio ads TODAY. This is 2001, and apparently everyone falls for the same crap. Or the advertisers think we do..
Why does Apple approve of Qt/Mac then? I brought this up in the previous article. Qt/Mac uses an emulated Aqua style, just like all QStyles.
For Apple to say now that they don't want Mozilla using an emulated style makes zero sense. Unless Apple thinks that the Mozilla team can't do it right. According to a recent interview with Trolltech's president (quoted in this post), Apple worked with Trolltech in Qt/Mac development, maybe to ensure it is done correctly. Either that or Apple specifically gave Trolltech permission through a business deal.
Offtopic, I know, but after reading about these commands in the parent post, I have to ask.
I thought most people didn't like the command line, which is why Windows is so popular. And yet it is in a game? Played for fun?
Don't get me wrong, I love the command line. However I can't imagine all Quake players are Unix-lovers. And Quake is not the only game to contain a console. Although I can't remember the name, I even saw an Interplay RPG with one. Do gamers suddenly want to be l33t? Anyone care to explain this?
IMO, I think a console in a game is actually kind of cool. Now if it were extended to be able to run external commands.... "!ssh", hehe:) Oh, and virtual terminals..
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot Roger Ebert!
Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5 stars
Except that I wasn't the one who made the screenshot, but oh well.
Linux
Windows
Mac OS X
XFree would probably run faster than DirectFB would simply because DGA and Xv get to use video card drivers that recieve much more attention and are consequently better tuned.
/dev/fb*.
That's a very narrow view. Who knows what the future holds? Currently XFree86 gets lots of attention, while Linux Framebuffer drivers do not. There is no reason this can't change.
I do like the remoteness of XFree, but other aspects are just plain bad. The most obvious problem with XFree is the inclusion of drivers. Every other driver I use in Linux is controlled by the kernel -- except for video. Why? There is nothing special about video that requires it to be separate. I should be able to just "insmod video.o" and install the driver. Fortunately, that's what the Linux Framebuffer is trying to correct. Video access is controlled by the kernel, and the display is served up on
This would ensure longevity in drivers. Right now, if we were to abandon XFree86, closed source X drivers would become worthless. This is why writing drivers for X is senseless. They should be written as kernel modules. This way, our display system is irrelevent. It could be DirectFB, X, or anything, and the driver stays the same.
The Linux Framebuffer also solves the permissions issue. To run an X server requires root access (so the executable is setuid root). The Linux Framebuffer, on the other hand, has permissions like any other 'device' (just chmod it) and you don't have to be root to use it! Yay! Maybe this fixes some security issues too? The Linux Framebuffer obsoletes svgalib in this regard as well.
Really, the Linux Framebuffer only brings good things. About the only counter to this argument is that not all other *nixes have framebuffers, and so it is the job of X to provide this. And to that, I say: Wrong! Time for these other *nixes to evolve. Linux should not be dragged down.
Please, move all driver development into the kernel realm, and call XFree86 finished. The only new things coming out of XFree are video drivers which have nothing to do with the X protocol anyway.
In short: X should not die, but X video drivers should.
Seriously. It looks like it could be a normal desktop windowing system. As it stands, you're right it looks like a total waste of effort for a bootloader, especially if they coded their own widgets.
Why are there options like "show window contents while dragging" ? This looks like the coders were having way too much fun. Currently, my bootloader (LILO) shows no more than a single line of text. It wouldn't surprise me if in the near future XOSL gets a tetris game.
Does anyone know where their widgets came from?
Actually, I believe the logic is more like:
// let them in
if( userAgent.contains("Internet Explorer") && !userAgent.contains("Opera") ) {
[...]
}
until WINE gets in gear with better support, linux will NEVER replace windows as a workplace. even then it probably wont.
So what exactly are you getting at? It sounds like you mean any OS that can't run Windows apps perfectly won't be able to make headway, even if they run such apps perfectly. You know, even though I use Linux/KDE, I think I agree with you.
But then why even state the obvious? Are you just acknowledging Microsoft's dominance? Do you think this is not a problem? Or does none of that matter to you?
I don't think any computer user (regardless of OS choice) is denying that Microsoft holds a monopoly on desktop operating systems. However, there is nothing wrong with having hope in another OS. I'm doing my part contributing to free software, and I wish Linux the best.
i get more then enough frames in quake3/desent3/heavygear 2 (the only loki games i own) and i dont drop frame in video (even divX) and as i only have 400Mhz to play with i dont understand why ppl are think X is so slow.
It's not necessarily slow, I just think it's backwards to be adding "direct" support to X. It should be the other way around. Look at it this way, how often do people take advantage of X's remote ability? Less than 1% of the time, I assure you. With DirectFB, you wouldn't lose your ability to work remotely, it would just be an extension (the reverse of X basically, where it's _directness_ that is an extension). X is optimized for running over the network. DirectFB would be a desktop that's optimized for running locally, ie 99% of what most people are doing.
Now, about games. I read a quote on directfb.org someplace about a guy not satisfied with the current DirectFB X layer (for running X programs). Since it doesn't (or didn't at the time) support DRI/DGA, he couldn't play his games on DirectFB. So he said something like this, and I swear I'm not lying when I type this, "I guess I'll use DirectFB for my normal apps, and X for games." Tell me that isn't backwards!
There is an obvious problem here.
We might see that happening in the near future now that Qt is available for Mac.
Qt has always worked between Windows/Unix, but big application companies (like say, Adobe) care more about Windows/Mac. AFAIK, Photoshop has two codebases, one for Windows and one for Mac. With Qt 3.0 they could reduce it to just one. Even though their original intention might be to just have Windows/Mac versions, this would place them "one compile away" from having a Linux version. They may or may not go the Linux route at first, but the option would be obviously there.
Who knows, maybe this will actually happen.
The source is only available if you have a MSVC++ license though, right? Qt works just like that too. I got full source code with my Qt/Windows license. However, since both sources are only available to license holders, they are effectively closed-source.
I did not realize you get MFC source with MSVC++ though, so thank you for pointing it out (I just now verified). I had thought it was always closed, even for developers.
This is a complete shameless plug for my application, but it is also a great example of how good of a crossplatform library Qt is.
Check out JabberCentral and you will see my client, "Psi", has both a Windows and Linux version. The programs are identical (all features are the same). By use of QSettings, application settings are stored in the registry on Windows and in a "dot" file on *nix. And the look&feel matches the OS.
The best part? All it took was a simple recompile. One source tree sure makes life easy.
-Justin
Actually, they say it's because a GPL application cannot be linked to a closed source library. They say if you want to link your GPL app to Qt/Noncommercial, then you need to include an exception-clause in your license (this is similar to what Linus does to allow commercial dev on Linux. read the Linux license sometime, it's not pure GPL).
And no, you can't get around this by using the commercial Qt. You aren't allowed to redistribute the source with that either.
However, IMO this is a strange necessity. I've seen some MFC windows apps claiming to be GPL. After reading this thing about Qt though, I wonder if that is even possible. MFC is closed source. Hell, so is Windows. Does that mean that pure GPL applications on Windows are impossible? That any GPL Windows app is actually GPL-with-exception by default?
Technicalities aside, if someone releases a GPL MFC app, you are _not_ allowed to make modifications unless you have a valid MSVC++ license. Granted, you can get MSVC loads cheaper than Qt, but it's the same principle.
Anyway, all I'm saying is Qt on Windows is no less evil than MFC when it comes to GPL. It's just more expensive (but then, it's also way better).
What I hate about Nautilus (and other Linux file managers, for that matter, this ain't just a Nautulus problem) is that it tries to launch files upon clicking them once.
I believe this is to get us away from the old double-click paradigm. You won't double-click anywhere in KDE (except maybe in a listview widget like from Licq). If you want to make Konqueror behave more like Windows Explorer, try disabling single-click launch and "change cursor over icons" (that hand thingy). Now if only it were faster..
Now keeping this in mind, when you see such a person zealously proclaim that The Gimp is superior to Photoshop for graphic arts work...
:) * End of rant *
First, I know a professional graphic artist, and the problem he has with the Gimp is mainly the UI. I'd imagine any "zealot" who recommends the Gimp is probably a fan of GTK and has no trouble getting around. Sorry, I don't use either program so I can't really can't elaborate. Second, how many people actually own Photoshop? Everyone recommending Photoshop is completely ignoring the fact that it costs hundreds of dollars. Maybe because no one pays for it? Hardly a fair comparison. It's funny how many people use Windows 2000 as their home desktop (and recommend it) yet did not pay for it. My theory is that it's a close second to Photoshop as the most pirated program. Folks, cost matters and should be part of your final decision. If someone can save hundreds of dollars by using the Gimp, then maybe they just might want to get used to the UI. Don't just toy with gimp for 30 seconds and say "ugh, I can't stand this. Time to reboot back to my pirated Win2k and Photoshop". Give it a chance.
Phew.
B: Bah! I don't _need_ to go to sites that that! F**k em!
Then I realize that "B" isn't someone who uses computers.
And what is a person supposed to do then? There are certain sites that you can't access if you're using a Mac. Should the person just throw the computer out and get a Windows box? People use what they use.
If you want to get rid of spam, replace SMTP. Create a system where addresses can be "authorized-only", similar to how ICQ can work: to receive mail from someone, you must authorize them to send to you.
:)
I have considered this. It would take a total overhaul of the current mail system, perhaps replacing it with something like Jabber (in fact, I think it's possible to replace SMTP and POP3 with Jabber if you made the right wrapper programs). Then you could simply ignore messages from people that don't have a subscription to you. Of course, if the spammers were persistant enough they would just send subscription requests to you first, which makes the argument moot.
You could take it further by saying that you don't allow direct subscription requests, meaning your contacts would have to ask you permission in person or on a messageboard. This might be a bit much.
-Justin
part 1 was posted in June and doesn't seem to be available in ZDNet's archives
:)
Do you mean this?
Part 2 links back to it.
-Justin
Isn't it quite amazing to read over that newsgroup post by Matthias Ettrich? It is probably the most ambitious post about a software project (that came true!) I've ever read. I wonder how people took it at first? Most probably laughed. Now look where it has gone. He wanted something to happen, and so he (and all those who joined him) worked towards the goal to _make_ it happen. Kind of like Torvalds and Linux. Truly inspirational!
In fact Unicode is certainly hard an painful to implement
Maybe for library programmers. I have been extremely impressed with the Qt library's handling of Unicode characters. The QString class is used across the board and supports full Unicode. My project, Psi can handle unicode everywhere (chat, nicknames), thanks to Qt. Heck, I didn't even know about this for the longest time. In fact, getting unicode chat over Jabber took just one extra function call:
QString::toUtf8();
I just use that before sending content or attributes to the Jabber XML stream. Qt's parser already converts incoming UTF-8 to Unicode. This was so amazingly easy to use from an "application coder"'s standpoint it's not even funny.
Of course, I can't speak any language other than English, so I personally won't be taking advantage of this. I know other people will though, and thankfully it was easy enough to put in.
-Justin
I used to be a die-hard Netscape user, back during Win95 days. When I upgraded to Win98, I found IE 4.0 was sitting on my drive. I had already installed Netscape, but eventually I started using IE more often. Pretty soon I stopped using Netscape entirely.
Why did I like IE? First off, if it didn't come with the computer then I never would have used it. Second, it loaded FAST. And you know what? I _knew_ that it was because of preloading. But who cares? Why should that stop me? Bottom line is that it loaded faster than Netscape so I used it. I also used Outlook Express instead of Netscape mail. I ended up using that before I had installed Netscape, and I got used to it.
I consider myself a techie. But if I was able to fall into this trap then how the hell would your "average Joe" ever get out? Anytime Microsoft bundles an application with the OS, it will mean the _end_ of any competing applications. It may be user-friendly and convenient for the rest of us, but it destroys competition. This is truly a problematic situation, even if you are a Microsoft die-hard.
Linux distributions do contain a lot of bundled software. Take the latest version of any of the major distros and the number of packages included will put any Windows install to shame. However, this isn't quite the same problem as Windows software bundling. Linux distributions consist of tools coming from various sources, so there isn't this "master software vendor." Also, often times many different programs that do the same thing are included (how many email clients come with Slackware? I can count at least 6) Finally, there are many Linux distributions to choose from, so again you're not getting force-fed by the master software vendor.
Linux distributions areall about choice. Microsoft is not.
Actually I think he meant the 3.0 Alpha was probably unstable, not KDE in general. :P
...wondering if you could do it wireless...
Hey maybe there are some uses for x10 equipment after all! But hurry! This sale ends tomorrow even though it will be on sale again the next day!
(Ducks to avoid a popup ad)
Qt is GPL. KDE libraries are LGPL. KDE apps are GPL.
I thought that Trolltech had finally pulled their head out of their ass when they got away from the QPL...I guess not.
Ok, this I really don't get. Would you rather they stayed with QPL? Or perhaps you would rather they chose a different alternative license instead of GPL. Let my try to guess. I'll start by picking the obvious one. You want Qt to be BSD or similarly licensed so that you can develop closed source apps, or libraries to aid in someone else's closed source development.
No, of course not. You are immensely anti-closed-source. That's why you don't like the QPL. It's not compatible with GPL, which RMS liked to rant about, thus you dislike QPL. Fine, Qt is now GPL.
So which is it? What do you have a problem with? At least say something more obvious like "I don't want Trolltech making money" or "Down with the GPL!" or something. Right now I am confused. Perhaps I lost your point somewhere between my couch cushions.
Has anyone else noticed that their special deals are always about to expire in the next day or two, and yet the offer itself doesn't change for weeks on end. Maybe someone should get them on deceptive advertising?
I don't think anyone could do anything about it. These types of schemes have been around forever. I still hear "call in the next 10 minutes, and receive..." in radio ads TODAY. This is 2001, and apparently everyone falls for the same crap. Or the advertisers think we do..
Why does Apple approve of Qt/Mac then? I brought this up in the previous article. Qt/Mac uses an emulated Aqua style, just like all QStyles.
For Apple to say now that they don't want Mozilla using an emulated style makes zero sense. Unless Apple thinks that the Mozilla team can't do it right. According to a recent interview with Trolltech's president (quoted in this post), Apple worked with Trolltech in Qt/Mac development, maybe to ensure it is done correctly. Either that or Apple specifically gave Trolltech permission through a business deal.
I think there is something we are missing here.
Offtopic, I know, but after reading about these commands in the parent post, I have to ask.
:) Oh, and virtual terminals..
I thought most people didn't like the command line, which is why Windows is so popular. And yet it is in a game? Played for fun?
Don't get me wrong, I love the command line. However I can't imagine all Quake players are Unix-lovers. And Quake is not the only game to contain a console. Although I can't remember the name, I even saw an Interplay RPG with one. Do gamers suddenly want to be l33t? Anyone care to explain this?
IMO, I think a console in a game is actually kind of cool. Now if it were extended to be able to run external commands.... "!ssh", hehe