Can you say Hardware Video Acceleration? Currently X is doing all it does (generally) with your CPU. If you have hardware accelerated graphics, then the computer can do more with less work. I have heard of some Enlightenment testing with a full alpha canvas with framerates in the hundereds of frames per second for large, complex 2D graphics. The problem is not X.
With regard to Nautilus, the answer I keep hearing is that they arn't done with speedups. Only time will tell, but the people working on it are aware of the issues.
My understanding is that this is not correct. If this were the case then you could use any old point light source but you can't. What is going on here is the laser light interfering with itself in your eye. See this link from the exploratorium: http://isaac.exploratorium.edu/~pauld/summeer_in st itute/summer_day1perception/laser_speckle.html
It is quite an interesting effect but has nothing to do with you'r eyes' resolution.
It is, of course, the people who voted for nader (at least in Florida) who created this mess. If even a few of you Nader-voters in florida had voted for Gore, we would not have a conservative anti-choice, anti-environment, drinking and driving hypocrite in the oval office.
True, a vote for Nader was not a vote for Bush directly, but it certainly wasn't a vote against Bush.
Sory for the rant. I voted my conscience too--my conscience said that a person like Bush is not the sort of person to lead the country.
I understand your frusteration with your prof. But, as far as I know, you could have released it under GPL for his class and then released it under BSD or whatever afterwards. If you are the copyright holder, I believe that you can do this.
The demo runs on a dual processor RH box with 1GB of ram. Consider how many users want to view the demo (which is cool---that's how I checked the specs) and compare that to how many desktops such a box can be serving. It was ``/.ed'' the night PR3 came out (several nights ago. My/. submission on it was rejected---go figure) I'd wait for the pressure to die off and give it a try... or just keep reloading untill you get it.
And it would be nice if Helix^W Ximian and Eazel would get together on their libs. Nautilus killed Evolution.
While I agree on the first point to some degree (particularly with package updating systems), I think you are confused about your second point. Nautilus is a file manager. Evolution is a mail client.
I know. I was being a bit facetious. I understand why the companies are doing what they are. I wonder what the licencing terms are for this new service. It seems sketchey if the users pay for the big companies to look the other way. It'd be completely different if I were paying for legal access to corperate servers, but if it is just paying for the ``right'' to copy files from others' computers, then it seems very odd.
Yes, but... From the sound of things you are just paying for record companies to look the other way when you trade music. Although they clearly see the difference between trading for free and them getting money, it seems that in terms of copy-rights, paying the middle man shouldn't change the legality. I've baught more CDs after listening to MP3s for months than I ever had when I listened to the radio. I don't see why I should be paying the companies for their own advertizing.
Perhaps it's just a nerd thing, but here at Harvey Mudd the 3D effects got more audience response than most of the rest of the game. It's very cool technology and instant replays are a great place to debut it.
As far as WM's go, IceWM and BlackBox all the way! I currently run IceWM, and it's awesome.. very beautiful, fast and effecient in every way, BlackBox is the same, although you may have to get used to it's "no bitmap" policy.
According to http://www.us.rasterman.com/news.html, ``I've been working on Enlightenment 0.17 too - and well- optimizing it too. I'm pretty sure its currently the fastest window manager out there - admittedly not 100% complete - just check it out of CVS. I've been doing performance comparisons with blackbox, fvwm, twm, windowmaker, sawfish, mwm and fvwm2 - and enlightenment 0.17 sofar equals or beats them in every speed test i throw at it.'' I find this quite interesting.
But on another, slightly off-topic note.. everyone here is talking about 3D hardware acceleration. What ever happened to 2D hardware acceleration and how to it's not supported in X or seemingly trying to be supported?
Almost nobody here is talking about 3D hardware acceleration. Thiss is all about 2D. Contrary to popular belief OpenGL does 2D as well as 3D.
No one is saying that Enlightenment *is* the fastest window manager out there. It isn't. It's fast enough for many people, though, considering it's large feature set.
What Raster is saying is that actual tests of the *next* version of Enlightenment (using EVAS) show it to currently be the fastest window manager out there. I havn't tried that yet, but it sounds as though his claims are not without some evidence.
If you consider that he displays the full source on screen at the end, then it can't be that much data. It is quite reasonable that he was just using CD-Rs when he didn't have all that much data. If he were burning a few MB that would have been completely reasonable.
The difference is in the purpose of the markup - XML is (generally, with a good design) syntactic markup. LaTeX is entirely structural markup, specifying not *what* a particular element is, but how it is to be displayed.
I think you are confused. LaTeX *is* designed with with generalized structural markup in mind. (OTOH TeX focuses on specific markup.) In LaTeX you use commands like \section and \chapter and \emph, and (generally) not layout markup commands like ``itallics'' or font sizes.
``LaTeX is, to a large extent, an example of a `generic markup language' (GML). Thanks to the class file mechanism, the visual style of the various document elements are described in a single place outside of the source document itself'' (The LaTeX Companion, 7).
If you want true independence from propietrary data formats (and open source applications can have data formats that are just as restrictive as closed source applications to most users) then XML is the only real choice right now - a well defined XML document should be readable even *without* a parser, and with a well-defined DTD and a series of appropriate XSL files, you can select your own viewer application. What could possibly be better? Certainly not Word, StarOffice, LaTeX or any of the other competitors in this arena.
I'm not sure why you include LaTeX in this list. I'm not sure which, LaTeX or XML, would be best for the proposed use, but LaTeX most certainly *is* readable even without a `parser.' The other aspects of XML and LaTeX are where the two formats differ but both are designed as structured markup saved in ASCII.
I prefer many Gnome apps to the KDE equivalents but can't stand the amount of space the Gnome panel takes up (it seems to be built to be big: kpanel seems to be designed to be thin and simulate the Win9x taskbar as much as possible.)
You must not have tried the Gnome panel recently. It's minimum size is 12 pixels (half the size of the Windows taskbar) and it can also be set at (in pixels) 24, 36, 48, 64, 80, and 128. You can set it up to simulate the Windows taskbar if you like, or you can throw it wherever you like... It's very configurable. I'd be suprised if it can't do what you want.
Interesting. I havn't used word for a while (yeay LaTeX) but I seem to remember very small fonts being anti-aliased. I could be wrong. Also, it could be that antialiasing isn't turned on again untill the letters get very tiny---about 6pt or less perhaps---when the distinguishing characteristics of letters would be completely gone.
That's an interesting view of anti-aliasing but somewhat closed-minded. The author's main argument is ``Frankly, anti-aliased text just looks bad.'' This is silly. I'll agree that at some sizes with fonts designed for the job anti-aliasing is harder to read. That certainly doesn't make it look bad, though. The problem with anti-aliased text is when it's blurryness makes your eyes strain to try to focus as you read. Non-anti-aliased and slightly anti-aliased font rendering fixes this problem. However, when you are looking at very small letters non-anti-aliased text is illegible. Very large letters, on the other hand look pixelated when not anti-aliased. If you look at a Windows machine, you'll see that normal reading sized fonts are not anti-aliased. Only large and small fonts are. The author also bashes ``ClearType'' for being anti-aliasing, even though it actually uses more ``pixels'' (by addressing each color of the pixels separately).
I'll shut up before I go off on too much of a rant, but it seems like this person simply doesn't understand what he's talking about. Anti-aliasing has limitations but so does your screen.
If you havn't tried LaTeX yet, I suggest you give it a whirl. I started out with TeX only to realize that LaTeX is what is used for real-world things in my experience. LaTeX is generally much more powerful for practical things... along with doing indecies, contents pages, bibliographies, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
--Ben
--Ben
With regard to Nautilus, the answer I keep hearing is that they arn't done with speedups. Only time will tell, but the people working on it are aware of the issues.
--Ben
http://isaac.exploratorium.edu/~pauld/summeer_i
It is quite an interesting effect but has nothing to do with you'r eyes' resolution.
--Ben
It is, of course, the people who voted for nader (at least in Florida) who created this mess. If even a few of you Nader-voters in florida had voted for Gore, we would not have a conservative anti-choice, anti-environment, drinking and driving hypocrite in the oval office.
True, a vote for Nader was not a vote for Bush directly, but it certainly wasn't a vote against Bush.
Sory for the rant. I voted my conscience too--my conscience said that a person like Bush is not the sort of person to lead the country.
--Ben
--Ben
--Ben
--Ben
While I agree on the first point to some degree (particularly with package updating systems), I think you are confused about your second point. Nautilus is a file manager. Evolution is a mail client.
--Ben
--Ben
--Ben
BTW: The people making it have a web page which I havn't seen linked to: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/virtualized-reality/main.htm l
--Ben
--Ben
Perhaps, but from the kind of person Knuth is, I'm sure that it is.
--Ben
--Ben
According to http://www.us.rasterman.com/news.html, ``I've been working on Enlightenment 0.17 too - and well- optimizing it too. I'm pretty sure its currently the fastest window manager out there - admittedly not 100% complete - just check it out of CVS. I've been doing performance comparisons with blackbox, fvwm, twm, windowmaker, sawfish, mwm and fvwm2 - and enlightenment 0.17 sofar equals or beats them in every speed test i throw at it.'' I find this quite interesting.
But on another, slightly off-topic note.. everyone here is talking about 3D hardware acceleration. What ever happened to 2D hardware acceleration and how to it's not supported in X or seemingly trying to be supported?
Almost nobody here is talking about 3D hardware acceleration. Thiss is all about 2D. Contrary to popular belief OpenGL does 2D as well as 3D.
--Ben
What Raster is saying is that actual tests of the *next* version of Enlightenment (using EVAS) show it to currently be the fastest window manager out there. I havn't tried that yet, but it sounds as though his claims are not without some evidence.
--Ben
--Ben
I think you are confused. LaTeX *is* designed with with generalized structural markup in mind. (OTOH TeX focuses on specific markup.) In LaTeX you use commands like \section and \chapter and \emph, and (generally) not layout markup commands like ``itallics'' or font sizes.
``LaTeX is, to a large extent, an example of a `generic markup language' (GML). Thanks to the class file mechanism, the visual style of the various document elements are described in a single place outside of the source document itself'' (The LaTeX Companion, 7).
I hope that clarifies things.
--Ben
I'm not sure why you include LaTeX in this list. I'm not sure which, LaTeX or XML, would be best for the proposed use, but LaTeX most certainly *is* readable even without a `parser.' The other aspects of XML and LaTeX are where the two formats differ but both are designed as structured markup saved in ASCII.
--Ben
Why not? First of all, does your eye accept looking at a monitor sideways?
I think you have a misconception of how CRTs work... Yes they scan sideways but they scan up and down too... side to side, then addvance a line.
--Ben
You must not have tried the Gnome panel recently. It's minimum size is 12 pixels (half the size of the Windows taskbar) and it can also be set at (in pixels) 24, 36, 48, 64, 80, and 128. You can set it up to simulate the Windows taskbar if you like, or you can throw it wherever you like... It's very configurable. I'd be suprised if it can't do what you want.
--Ben
--Ben
That's an interesting view of anti-aliasing but somewhat closed-minded. The author's main argument is ``Frankly, anti-aliased text just looks bad.'' This is silly. I'll agree that at some sizes with fonts designed for the job anti-aliasing is harder to read. That certainly doesn't make it look bad, though. The problem with anti-aliased text is when it's blurryness makes your eyes strain to try to focus as you read. Non-anti-aliased and slightly anti-aliased font rendering fixes this problem. However, when you are looking at very small letters non-anti-aliased text is illegible. Very large letters, on the other hand look pixelated when not anti-aliased. If you look at a Windows machine, you'll see that normal reading sized fonts are not anti-aliased. Only large and small fonts are. The author also bashes ``ClearType'' for being anti-aliasing, even though it actually uses more ``pixels'' (by addressing each color of the pixels separately).
I'll shut up before I go off on too much of a rant, but it seems like this person simply doesn't understand what he's talking about. Anti-aliasing has limitations but so does your screen.
--Ben
--Ben