I know it would be a terrible performance hog, but I don't think it's actually impossible. Apps like xv, xwd, and xmag are all capable of snapshotting whatever's already on the screen, and I know I've seen at least one xmag-type program (I forget its name) that does this in realtime.
Why couldn't you make a redraw loop for your GTK rendering engine that does this each time, then overlays (in semi-transparency) its own widgets?
That said, isn't that how some of those hacked transparent xterm/rxvt derivatives work?
I remember hearing a theory that the centralization / decentralization trends were completely cyclical. IE: each has its advantages, and every few years, somebody gets fed up with the disadvantages of whichever they're using and starts pushing the other one again.
In the centralized camp, we have the mainframe / terminal pair, the minicomputer / terminal pair, enterprise software updates via "push apps" (circa 1996), "network computers" (circa 1997), Web apps (Hotmail is an application by traditional definitions), and now this Microsoft thingie.
In the decentralized camp, we have workstations, PC's, and personal servers (ie: a single user Linux box) in their various generations.
Corporations always tend to prefer the centralized model, because it makes for automatic standardization (which is cheaper and easier to support), and easy censorship. "The computer is merely a tool" users also like it because it takes the responsibility of computer maintenance and administration out of their hands.
Power users usually prefer the decentralized model because they value privacy and freedom of choice. It's no surprise, then, what viewpoint most Slashdotters will take!
> example: how do you prove that Win2K doesn't use some modified Linux IP stack?
Point well taken, but I think you might have picked a better example... I thought the recent benchmarks showed that the core IP stack was one of the few places where NT actually performed better than Linux. Of course, 2.3 is already far along at addressing the problem, right?
Before I discovered the benefits of programming in a Unix-type environment, I used to do a bunch of VB programming. (Admit it, many of you did too!)
There is a quick solution to VB's cross-version compatibility problem... use the "save as text" option in the older version's IDE, then "load from text" in the new version. They put in this feature to allow people to use better editors than the one in the IDE. It has been available at least since VB 2.
Div. But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
When it came out several years back, Java promised to put an end to caring about what operating system you were running. Of course, we all know that this promise fell flat in reality, and that there are very few actual applications written in Java.
However, in recent months, now that the media hype has lifted and the technology has had a little time to mature, I've started to see the promise come true to a certain extent. For example, when the task at hand is doing Java programming, it doesn't matter to me whether I'm using Linux, Tru64 Unix, Windows, or even a Mac (and I otherwise wouldn't recommend using a Mac for programming unless you're an extreme masochist).
Even more importantly, Java is nowheres near the only reason to ignore what platform you're on. All of the GNU tools run on Windows, BeOS, OS/2, NeXTStep, and reportedly even the Amiga almost as well as they do on their original Unix (in all of its varieties). Perl, Tcl, and Python and all carefully crafted programs written in them are platform neutral too. If you prefer C, as long as you stick to the standard library and maybe the sockets calls, that code will run virtually anywhere too with only minimal modification.
The point is that in this day and age, it is very easy to jump ship without having to worry about losing the ability to run all your favorite apps. This is good because it lets you choose your OS of the day based on nothing but the strength of its core features: performance, security, hardware support, etc. It's bad for those who really care about the OS itself, because it eliminates many of the traditional incentives for loyalty.
Div. But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
I know that "me too" posts are generally frowned upon, but since this forum does constitute a bit of a poll for the biggest problems with X, I'll break the rule just once.
Support for more than one bit fonts is the single biggest lacking feature of X.
You don't need to have an antialiasing engine built in to X itself, but you do need to add the ability to treat fonts analogously to XPM, not XBM. I'd personally love to create some 2 bit (4 levels of grey) bitmapped screen fonts. Furthermore, both the TrueType (FreeType) and T1 renderers are already set up for antialiasing support... they just need the damn drawable!
Div. But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
> Unless all expandability moved outside the case. Maybe a really (really really really) high-speed external bus standard will come about. So you will then start seeing external 3D graphics adapters and SCSI adpaters.
Right on! Make everything external, use busses that don't have wimpy limits on the number of devices attached to them (ahem ISA, PCI, and SCSI) , and you'll have wonderful expandability. As someone who never has enough card slots or drive bays (let alone IRQs!) in a case to run all my peripherals at once, I really look forward to the day when this will happen.
Maybe Firewire/ISO-1394 will be acceptable for this purpose in a few generations, when they've upped the transfer rate some more.
Lots of benefits on the dumb consumer end too... Can sell smaller boxes because end users won't need all the gimicks. Virtually eliminates installation and upgrade issues (as long as there aren't stupid problems like termination in SCSI). Lowers cost of the cheapest computers, since you only buy what you need. Etc, etc.
-- Div. But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
I certainly agree that any programmer should be free to choose his own license (commercial, shareware, or open source), and if the end users don't like it, they should use something else rather than complaining.
However, I have to disagree with your statement that open source is only appropriate for college students, grant recipients, and lecturers. I would say that it is often the most appropriate licence for anyone who writes software for fun rather than livelyhood.
I, for instance, make a sufficient living as a professional programmer, but when I write stuff for fun on my own time, just finishing the program and having its functionality available to me is its own reward. I don't need the hastles of managing shareware, and besides, I know my software can benefit more people when it's free (in both senses of the word). I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
--Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
Re:Where's the open-source Visual Studio environme
on
BeOS r4.5 released
·
· Score: 1
We're getting way off topic here, but I'll answer anyway, since it's a legitimate question.
There is a new, but supposedly fairly decent open source IDE called Code Crusader (obviously playing on the name of the commercial Code Warrior, which incidentally has just been ported to Linux). If you're just looking for a graphical debugger, you might want to try DDD, which works as a friendly and powerful frontend to traditional command-line debuggers like gdb and dbx (nicely hiding their complexity). I don't know the URL's to either of these offhand, but you can find them via the AppIndex at Freshmeat.
I'm a command-line guy myself on my own time, but I do use Microsoft's IDE at work and understand that some folks work better that way.
Div. But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
> Another example is the word "Exterminate" from > the Doctor Who television series. This word was > invented and yet became so popular it was > eventually acknowledged by the Cambride [sic] > Dictionary.
Um, my Merriam-Webster dictionary seems to think that the word "exterminate" entered the English language around 1591. That predates the Daleks by a slight bit, don't you think?
Just to clarify what was Enry said, the rsize and wsize options are flags you set either in the fstab or on the mount command line for every share you want to mount. Nothing need be changed on the server exporting the share.
This is documented right at the top of the nfs man page, and makes a world of difference. My group at work has a very similar situation to yours (most shares served by Digital Unix but adding more Linux boxes every day), and NFS was definitely a problem until we fixed this.
Div.
-- But my grandest creation, As history will tell, Was Firefrorefiddle,
The application languages: HTML, PostScript (yes, raw), make, sed, CSound (orc, sco), Guido, CAL, QAC, and at least a dozen more I can't think of offhand.
Div
-- But my grandest creation, As history will tell, Was Firefrorefiddle,
Not much help on the telephony-specific angle, but for general purpose speech synthesis and analysis info for Linux, check out the Linux Audio Developers' Resource Page.
Why does it seem like suggesting this link is my answer to many Ask Slashdot questions? Maybe we need a FAQdot!
Div.
-- But my grandest creation, As history will tell, Was Firefrorefiddle,
The limiting factor in getting multichannel sound out of your sound card is seldom the driver; it is almost always the card itself. If your card has more than two physical channels of output, chances are that the driver can address them, although many applications are not designed to take advantage of this.
Quadraphonic and other more-than-two channel sound is well supported with all the Linux sound drivers I know, including both the free and commercial versions of Opensound (OSS), and its more modern free competitor ALSA.
If you have more than one sound card in your machine, you can even use a few audio channels from each at once to drive different speakers.
One program I know that can handle quadraphonic sound (maybe more) is Csound. It is a difficult program to learn, but very powerful and might suit your purpose (it is general enough to suit many purposes). Information about this and just about everything audio-related for Linux is available at the Linux Audio Developers Resource Site.
Hope this helps, Div.
-- But my grandest creation, As history will tell, Was Firefrorefiddle,
Slashdot Mirror
I know it would be a terrible performance hog, but I don't think it's actually impossible. Apps like xv, xwd, and xmag are all capable of snapshotting whatever's already on the screen, and I know I've seen at least one xmag-type program (I forget its name) that does this in realtime.
Why couldn't you make a redraw loop for your GTK rendering engine that does this each time, then overlays (in semi-transparency) its own widgets?
That said, isn't that how some of those hacked transparent xterm/rxvt derivatives work?
-- Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
> Linux: the dot in "dot org".
Wonderful signature! (I always thought the "Where do you want to go tomorrow" thing gave the wrong message.)
-- Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
I remember hearing a theory that the centralization / decentralization trends were completely cyclical. IE: each has its advantages, and every few years, somebody gets fed up with the disadvantages of whichever they're using and starts pushing the other one again.
In the centralized camp, we have the mainframe / terminal pair, the minicomputer / terminal pair, enterprise software updates via "push apps" (circa 1996), "network computers" (circa 1997), Web apps (Hotmail is an application by traditional definitions), and now this Microsoft thingie.
In the decentralized camp, we have workstations, PC's, and personal servers (ie: a single user Linux box) in their various generations.
Corporations always tend to prefer the centralized model, because it makes for automatic standardization (which is cheaper and easier to support), and easy censorship. "The computer is merely a tool" users also like it because it takes the responsibility of computer maintenance and administration out of their hands.
Power users usually prefer the decentralized model because they value privacy and freedom of choice. It's no surprise, then, what viewpoint most Slashdotters will take!
-- Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
> example: how do you prove that Win2K doesn't use some modified Linux IP stack?
Point well taken, but I think you might have picked a better example... I thought the recent benchmarks showed that the core IP stack was one of the few places where NT actually performed better than Linux. Of course, 2.3 is already far along at addressing the problem, right?
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
In case you're looking, the name is Behringer, and the URL is "http://www.behringer.de/eng/".
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
Before I discovered the benefits of programming in a Unix-type environment, I used to do a bunch of VB programming. (Admit it, many of you did too!)
There is a quick solution to VB's cross-version compatibility problem... use the "save as text" option in the older version's IDE, then "load from text" in the new version. They put in this feature to allow people to use better editors than the one in the IDE. It has been available at least since VB 2.
Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
When it came out several years back, Java promised to put an end to caring about what operating system you were running. Of course, we all know that this promise fell flat in reality, and that there are very few actual applications written in Java.
However, in recent months, now that the media hype has lifted and the technology has had a little time to mature, I've started to see the promise come true to a certain extent. For example, when the task at hand is doing Java programming, it doesn't matter to me whether I'm using Linux, Tru64 Unix, Windows, or even a Mac (and I otherwise wouldn't recommend using a Mac for programming unless you're an extreme masochist).
Even more importantly, Java is nowheres near the only reason to ignore what platform you're on. All of the GNU tools run on Windows, BeOS, OS/2, NeXTStep, and reportedly even the Amiga almost as well as they do on their original Unix (in all of its varieties). Perl, Tcl, and Python and all carefully crafted programs written in them are platform neutral too. If you prefer C, as long as you stick to the standard library and maybe the sockets calls, that code will run virtually anywhere too with only minimal modification.
The point is that in this day and age, it is very easy to jump ship without having to worry about losing the ability to run all your favorite apps. This is good because it lets you choose your OS of the day based on nothing but the strength of its core features: performance, security, hardware support, etc. It's bad for those who really care about the OS itself, because it eliminates many of the traditional incentives for loyalty.
Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
I know that "me too" posts are generally frowned upon, but since this forum does constitute a bit of a poll for the biggest problems with X, I'll break the rule just once.
Support for more than one bit fonts is the single biggest lacking feature of X.
You don't need to have an antialiasing engine built in to X itself, but you do need to add the ability to treat fonts analogously to XPM, not XBM. I'd personally love to create some 2 bit (4 levels of grey) bitmapped screen fonts. Furthermore, both the TrueType (FreeType) and T1 renderers are already set up for antialiasing support... they just need the damn drawable!
Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
> Unless all expandability moved outside the case. Maybe a really (really really really) high-speed external bus standard will come about. So you will then start seeing external 3D graphics adapters and SCSI adpaters.
Right on! Make everything external, use busses that don't have wimpy limits on the number of devices attached to them (ahem ISA, PCI, and SCSI) , and you'll have wonderful expandability. As someone who never has enough card slots or drive bays (let alone IRQs!) in a case to run all my peripherals at once, I really look forward to the day when this will happen.
Maybe Firewire/ISO-1394 will be acceptable for this purpose in a few generations, when they've upped the transfer rate some more.
Lots of benefits on the dumb consumer end too... Can sell smaller boxes because end users won't need all the gimicks. Virtually eliminates installation and upgrade issues (as long as there aren't stupid problems like termination in SCSI). Lowers cost of the cheapest computers, since you only buy what you need. Etc, etc.
-- Div.But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
I certainly agree that any programmer should be free to choose his own license (commercial, shareware, or open source), and if the end users don't like it, they should use something else rather than complaining.
However, I have to disagree with your statement that open source is only appropriate for college students, grant recipients, and lecturers. I would say that it is often the most appropriate licence for anyone who writes software for fun rather than livelyhood.
I, for instance, make a sufficient living as a professional programmer, but when I write stuff for fun on my own time, just finishing the program and having its functionality available to me is its own reward. I don't need the hastles of managing shareware, and besides, I know my software can benefit more people when it's free (in both senses of the word). I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
--Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
We're getting way off topic here, but I'll answer anyway, since it's a legitimate question.
There is a new, but supposedly fairly decent open source IDE called Code Crusader (obviously playing on the name of the commercial Code Warrior, which incidentally has just been ported to Linux). If you're just looking for a graphical debugger, you might want to try DDD, which works as a friendly and powerful frontend to traditional command-line debuggers like gdb and dbx (nicely hiding their complexity). I don't know the URL's to either of these offhand, but you can find them via the AppIndex at Freshmeat.
I'm a command-line guy myself on my own time, but I do use Microsoft's IDE at work and understand that some folks work better that way.
Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
> Another example is the word "Exterminate" from
> the Doctor Who television series. This word was
> invented and yet became so popular it was
> eventually acknowledged by the Cambride [sic]
> Dictionary.
Um, my Merriam-Webster dictionary seems to
think that the word "exterminate" entered the
English language around 1591. That predates
the Daleks by a slight bit, don't you think?
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
This is documented right at the top of the nfs man page, and makes a world of difference. My group at work has a very similar situation to yours (most shares served by Digital Unix but adding more Linux boxes every day), and NFS was definitely a problem until we fixed this.
Div.
--
But my grandest creation,
As history will tell,
Was Firefrorefiddle,
The mainstays: C, Bourne, Java, Tcl, Perl
The every now and then's: C++, VB
The old standbyes: Scheme, ML, QuickBasic, Pascal
The application languages: HTML, PostScript (yes, raw), make, sed, CSound (orc, sco), Guido, CAL, QAC, and at least a dozen more I can't think of offhand.
Div--
But my grandest creation,
As history will tell,
Was Firefrorefiddle,
Not much help on the telephony-specific angle, but for general purpose speech synthesis and analysis info for Linux, check out the Linux Audio Developers' Resource Page.
Why does it seem like suggesting this link is my answer to many Ask Slashdot questions? Maybe we need a FAQdot!
Div.
--
But my grandest creation,
As history will tell,
Was Firefrorefiddle,
The limiting factor in getting multichannel sound out of your sound card is seldom the driver; it is almost always the card itself. If your card has more than two physical channels of output, chances are that the driver can address them, although many applications are not designed to take advantage of this.
Quadraphonic and other more-than-two channel sound is well supported with all the Linux sound drivers I know, including both the free and commercial versions of Opensound (OSS), and its more modern free competitor ALSA.
If you have more than one sound card in your machine, you can even use a few audio channels from each at once to drive different speakers.
One program I know that can handle quadraphonic sound (maybe more) is Csound. It is a difficult program to learn, but very powerful and might suit your purpose (it is general enough to suit many purposes). Information about this and just about everything audio-related for Linux is available at the Linux Audio Developers Resource Site.
Hope this helps,Div.
--
But my grandest creation,
As history will tell,
Was Firefrorefiddle,