Am I just missing something here, or is there still really no way to have artsd use esound as its output device? I have no sound card in my Linux box, and I run esound on my Win2k box for sound output over the network from Linux... but artsd doesn't seem to be able to output to esound! This seems like it would be a pretty obvious feature to me.
Or, failing that, is there any arts-compatible sound daemon for win32?
No, it can't be done with current tech. These "chips" can't do any processing at all. They are more like colored paint that glows under a black light, except that these glow under radio waves. The pattern of the glow can be interperted as a number.
Ok. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that it can't be done with current technology, just that these chips don't do it. Why would it be so hard, anyway? You just need to do a little bit of crypto and a little data transmission and reception. Granted, I know nothing about it, but it seems to me that current technology wouldn't really have too much trouble with it.
It's "Food and Drug Administration," not "Federal Drug Administration."
Anyway, I don't think that implantable ID chips are a good idea by any stretch of the imagination, but to those of you who say "it just transmits a number, therefore it would be easy to clone somebody's chip," it would be possible to make a (much more) secure chip that accomplishes the same thing. Think public key crypto; if you want to check if this chip belongs to person X, you send the chip a bit of data, it signs it with a private key and only sends out the signed data, not the key itself. Then you check it against person X's public key. It would work on the same principle as digital signatures.
Of course, it would have to have a large enough key that it would be infeasible to brute force any time in the forseeable future (barring quantum computing), and it would have to be based on a proven and time-tested encryption algorithm.
That said, you won't catch anybody sticking one of these fucking things in me.
The Debian installer used to be awful, and you really needed to know your way around dselect to get it installed properly (or you can just install nothing and apt-get it all once you've installed).
I recently installed unstable, using the testing installer, and I was surprised to see that it doesn't seem to use dselect anymore! There's a much more friendly (although still text-based) utility it uses to select packages. Honestly, the installer really is pretty easy now (on par with RedHat, anyway, only a bit less pretty). It could be better for non-computer-literate users, but only stuff like the partitioning utility.
This was on alpha, btw. Things may be different on the x86 side of things.
You already can - choose Connect to Server from one of the menus in the Finder (not sure which menu it is, my OS X box is currently out of commission), and then put in the server URL as smb://server.
... since I always get flamed or moderated down when I say things like this on Slashdot, but what you're looking for is FreeBSD (with Linux emulation if you need to run closed-source stuff).
It does not work very well. First of all, QT has a bug where it expects to receive a certain X message before it accepts the input focus. Most window managers don't send this X message when the keyboard is grabbed, so QT apps won't take keyboard input. Try this: launch twm or an older version of WindowMaker, launch a QT application and try using Alt-Tab to cycle to the application (you'll need to configure twm to allow you to do this). It will no longer take keyboard input even though it is the focus window.
Yes it will. The problem is that the alt from the alt-tab causes the menu to get selected, and kwin works around this. Look up at your menu bar and you should see the first menu item selected. Tap alt again to unselect it, and it'll work fine.
The Unix directories are completely
hidden from the Finder
No they're not. There's an option - it MAY be "Show hidden files" or something to that effect, but I'm pretty sure it's not. I'm not at my OS X box right now so I can't check. It can be done, though.
Now, as for your gripes about/etc, all I can say is THANK GOD! OS X is great for one reason only - they took Unix, dumped all the crap, and kept all the good stuff. It's Unix, how it was meant to be done. No more worrying about hundreds of apps, each with their own configuration mechanism - it all goes through Apple's (NeXT's) APIs and is stored as XML.
and likewise one cannot start GUI apps from the console.
Try Cygwin, which has a Win32 port of gcc. As for IDE's, I used RHIDE waaaaay back in the day with DJGPP, and it was decent, I suppose. But really, when you've got vim, what more do you need?:)
If you have a shell account on a box which is outside Earthlink's jurisdiction, you can do what I do:
ssh -L2001:mail.server.to.use:25 my.shell.server
Any connections to port 2001 on your local machine will then be forwarded (encrypted) to your shell server, and from there be forwarded to port 25 on the mail server.
ssh makes a great tool for busting out of firewalls.
This is new? They used something like this when I was at the University of Maryland a few years ago. And it did more than just check for exact matches, it compared parse trees and so on to check for similar program structure (any matches were, of course, double-checked by a human before ringing the cheating bell). It caught quite a few people I knew.
You're missing the most important part -- Mac OS X software is not neccessarily going to be any more portable to UNIX than Windows software is, because 99.9% of commercial developers will target the proprietary APIs like Cocoa.
No, dude. Cocoa is pretty much just a new name for the OpenStep API, with a bit added. GNUStep is working on writing a fully OpenStep-compliant environment to run on *nix and Windows, and is coming along nicely. When it's more complete, Cocoa applications will be very portable to other operating systems.
Of course, that isn't to say I'd abandon this beautiful OS and go back to Linux, but hey:)
How does crossing an app's window give it the focus? You would have to click on its window to bring focus to it.
Which brings us to my original point, which is that I like sloppy focus, where simply moving the mouse pointer into a window gives it focus, while this just doesn't fly with the menubar-on-top paradigm.
Don't get me wrong, I love MacOS and I do understand why people like the menu bar on top (I'm using MacOS 9.2 right now), but it should be optional so that people who like sloppy focus can use it too.
Heh, I went to high school with Chris Evans (he's one of the main characters... I haven't seen the movie, but he's the one they show in the previews wearing whipped cream on his nipples). He's as much of a dumbass in real life as he is in that movie, so for that reason alone, I always laugh at the previews:) I'll probably have to rent the movie at some point, but you're not gonna catch me spending (3 * $pack_of_cigarettes) on that piece of shit movie.
I hope that Jordan Hubbard being employed by Apple does a little bit to speed the development of the PPC FreeBSD port. Linux on PPC has some serious issues (most notably random lockups, due to which I had a very important ext2 partition NOT survive an fsck the other day, causing me to lose about a week and a half of work). 2.2 was much more stable, but 2.4 performs significantly better.
I would love to run a more solid OS on my Powerbook, but the FreeBSD port isn't in a useable state yet, and OS X has a few interface issues that just make it COMPLETELY unuseable for me. First of all, the menu bar at the top of the screen. While I understand the appeal, it breaks any hope of using sloppy focus - you can be in a situation where you simply can't get to the menu bar of an app without crossing over another application's window, which would give it the focus and change the menubar. Sure, you could rearrange the windows so you can get up to the menubar, but that's an annoyance and kinda annuls the main point of using sloppy focus in the first place (speed)! Second of all, and this is a minor bitch because it can be easily fixed, I need GOOD virtual desktop support. Space.app just doesn't cut it. I need virtual desktops to switch quickly and to have FUCKING HOTKEYS! Third, and again, this is easily fixed (but I'm surprised it hasn't been yet) - how about a decent native terminal emulation? Terminal.app is shit! My terminal application should NOT eat my page up/page down keys.
*deep breath*. Ok, now that I've gotten that off my chest...:) I'm probably going to end up reinstalling OS X.1 on my laptop sometime in the next few days, just because I can't trust the Linux kernel on PPC, which is a shame because I use Classic apps fairly frequently and Mac-on-Linux runs much better than OS X's Classic on lower-end hardware (I'm running a Powerbook G3 Wallstreet, 292mhz, 192MB RAM). Maybe I'll take a crack at writing a decent virtual desktop enabler. But DAMMIT, I want FreeBSD:( Oh well. I'll probably just end up running OS X with Xfree86 most of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
ARgh! No Alpha packages! I'd compile it myself, but downloading piles of source over dialup HURTS.
Anybody know of anyplace I can find precompiled Alpha debs of KDE 3?
hell, this will probably get mod'ed "Redundant" by the chimps with mod-points anyhow.
Yeah, probably. It's not really redundant, but until Slashdot gets a (-1, dumbass) moderation, it's the most fitting.
Am I just missing something here, or is there still really no way to have artsd use esound as its output device? I have no sound card in my Linux box, and I run esound on my Win2k box for sound output over the network from Linux... but artsd doesn't seem to be able to output to esound! This seems like it would be a pretty obvious feature to me.
Or, failing that, is there any arts-compatible sound daemon for win32?
No, it can't be done with current tech. These "chips" can't do any processing at all. They are more like colored paint that glows under a black light, except that these glow under radio waves. The pattern of the glow can be interperted as a number.
Ok. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that it can't be done with current technology, just that these chips don't do it. Why would it be so hard, anyway? You just need to do a little bit of crypto and a little data transmission and reception. Granted, I know nothing about it, but it seems to me that current technology wouldn't really have too much trouble with it.
Actally, it's "U.S. Food and Drug Administration', and if you ever went to the website, it's fda.gov
:)
:) I don't take pills of any sort unless I have no other choice.
Yeah, yeah
including almost every single drug you've ever taken
Not really - my drug of choice is regulated by the DEA
It's "Food and Drug Administration," not "Federal Drug Administration."
Anyway, I don't think that implantable ID chips are a good idea by any stretch of the imagination, but to those of you who say "it just transmits a number, therefore it would be easy to clone somebody's chip," it would be possible to make a (much more) secure chip that accomplishes the same thing. Think public key crypto; if you want to check if this chip belongs to person X, you send the chip a bit of data, it signs it with a private key and only sends out the signed data, not the key itself. Then you check it against person X's public key. It would work on the same principle as digital signatures.
Of course, it would have to have a large enough key that it would be infeasible to brute force any time in the forseeable future (barring quantum computing), and it would have to be based on a proven and time-tested encryption algorithm.
That said, you won't catch anybody sticking one of these fucking things in me.
The Debian installer used to be awful, and you really needed to know your way around dselect to get it installed properly (or you can just install nothing and apt-get it all once you've installed).
I recently installed unstable, using the testing installer, and I was surprised to see that it doesn't seem to use dselect anymore! There's a much more friendly (although still text-based) utility it uses to select packages. Honestly, the installer really is pretty easy now (on par with RedHat, anyway, only a bit less pretty). It could be better for non-computer-literate users, but only stuff like the partitioning utility.
This was on alpha, btw. Things may be different on the x86 side of things.
his is true up till Win2K. I can't browse my 2K box from my OS X box.
Then something's wrong with your system. I've never had a problem connecting to Win2k shares from an OS X box.
The ability to browse windows shares
You already can - choose Connect to Server from one of the menus in the Finder (not sure which menu it is, my OS X box is currently out of commission), and then put in the server URL as smb://server.
... since I always get flamed or moderated down when I say things like this on Slashdot, but what you're looking for is FreeBSD (with Linux emulation if you need to run closed-source stuff).
www.teranews.com
You have to sign up for an account and give an email address, but they've never spammed me.
It does not work very well. First of all, QT has a bug where it expects to receive a certain X message before it accepts the input focus. Most window managers don't send this X message when the keyboard is grabbed, so QT apps won't take keyboard input. Try this: launch twm or an older version of WindowMaker, launch a QT application and try using Alt-Tab to cycle to the application (you'll need to configure twm to allow you to do this). It will no longer take keyboard input even though it is the focus window.
Yes it will. The problem is that the alt from the alt-tab causes the menu to get selected, and kwin works around this. Look up at your menu bar and you should see the first menu item selected. Tap alt again to unselect it, and it'll work fine.
Damn, I can't even find any 20 year old bush.
The Unix directories are completely hidden from the Finder
/etc, all I can say is THANK GOD! OS X is great for one reason only - they took Unix, dumped all the crap, and kept all the good stuff. It's Unix, how it was meant to be done. No more worrying about hundreds of apps, each with their own configuration mechanism - it all goes through Apple's (NeXT's) APIs and is stored as XML.
No they're not. There's an option - it MAY be "Show hidden files" or something to that effect, but I'm pretty sure it's not. I'm not at my OS X box right now so I can't check. It can be done, though.
Now, as for your gripes about
and likewise one cannot start GUI apps from the console.
Try the "open" command.
How about just using the native "port" called djgpp
:) Plus, he was asking about Win32 compilers. DJGPP is DOS-only.
Well, the story mentioned DJGPP, so I assumed he already knew about it
Try Cygwin, which has a Win32 port of gcc. As for IDE's, I used RHIDE waaaaay back in the day with DJGPP, and it was decent, I suppose. But really, when you've got vim, what more do you need? :)
If you have a shell account on a box which is outside Earthlink's jurisdiction, you can do what I do:
ssh -L2001:mail.server.to.use:25 my.shell.server
Any connections to port 2001 on your local machine will then be forwarded (encrypted) to your shell server, and from there be forwarded to port 25 on the mail server.
ssh makes a great tool for busting out of firewalls.
This is new? They used something like this when I was at the University of Maryland a few years ago. And it did more than just check for exact matches, it compared parse trees and so on to check for similar program structure (any matches were, of course, double-checked by a human before ringing the cheating bell). It caught quite a few people I knew.
You're missing the most important part -- Mac OS X software is not neccessarily going to be any more portable to UNIX than Windows software is, because 99.9% of commercial developers will target the proprietary APIs like Cocoa.
:)
No, dude. Cocoa is pretty much just a new name for the OpenStep API, with a bit added. GNUStep is working on writing a fully OpenStep-compliant environment to run on *nix and Windows, and is coming along nicely. When it's more complete, Cocoa applications will be very portable to other operating systems.
Of course, that isn't to say I'd abandon this beautiful OS and go back to Linux, but hey
The Windows brandname is as strong as Coca-Cola, but the Coca-Cola brandname didn't stop Pepsi from having a go (and doing quite well, too).
Erm. I think you're thinking of RC Cola, which isn't doing quite so hot. Pepsi is more like the MacOS of the soda world.
Um... is there any reason you don't use NetBSD, which works just fine on PPC hardware?
:) I should give it a shot, I've never played around with NetBSD.
No, none at all
Heh.
:) He used to bum cigarettes off me in the parking lot at school.
1) Doing a drug that gives more misery when you're off of it than it does pleasure when you're on it
Tell me about it. Smoking sucks.
2) Thinking of money in terms of how much of that drug it buys you,
Hey, I'm broke. Money is counted in units of food, cigarettes, and weed.
3) Mocking someone else for being a dumbass
Ah, but he smoked too!
How does crossing an app's window give it the focus? You would have to click on its window to bring focus to it.
Which brings us to my original point, which is that I like sloppy focus, where simply moving the mouse pointer into a window gives it focus, while this just doesn't fly with the menubar-on-top paradigm.
Don't get me wrong, I love MacOS and I do understand why people like the menu bar on top (I'm using MacOS 9.2 right now), but it should be optional so that people who like sloppy focus can use it too.
Heh, I went to high school with Chris Evans (he's one of the main characters... I haven't seen the movie, but he's the one they show in the previews wearing whipped cream on his nipples). He's as much of a dumbass in real life as he is in that movie, so for that reason alone, I always laugh at the previews :) I'll probably have to rent the movie at some point, but you're not gonna catch me spending (3 * $pack_of_cigarettes) on that piece of shit movie.
I hope that Jordan Hubbard being employed by Apple does a little bit to speed the development of the PPC FreeBSD port. Linux on PPC has some serious issues (most notably random lockups, due to which I had a very important ext2 partition NOT survive an fsck the other day, causing me to lose about a week and a half of work). 2.2 was much more stable, but 2.4 performs significantly better.
:) I'm probably going to end up reinstalling OS X.1 on my laptop sometime in the next few days, just because I can't trust the Linux kernel on PPC, which is a shame because I use Classic apps fairly frequently and Mac-on-Linux runs much better than OS X's Classic on lower-end hardware (I'm running a Powerbook G3 Wallstreet, 292mhz, 192MB RAM). Maybe I'll take a crack at writing a decent virtual desktop enabler. But DAMMIT, I want FreeBSD :( Oh well. I'll probably just end up running OS X with Xfree86 most of the time.
I would love to run a more solid OS on my Powerbook, but the FreeBSD port isn't in a useable state yet, and OS X has a few interface issues that just make it COMPLETELY unuseable for me. First of all, the menu bar at the top of the screen. While I understand the appeal, it breaks any hope of using sloppy focus - you can be in a situation where you simply can't get to the menu bar of an app without crossing over another application's window, which would give it the focus and change the menubar. Sure, you could rearrange the windows so you can get up to the menubar, but that's an annoyance and kinda annuls the main point of using sloppy focus in the first place (speed)! Second of all, and this is a minor bitch because it can be easily fixed, I need GOOD virtual desktop support. Space.app just doesn't cut it. I need virtual desktops to switch quickly and to have FUCKING HOTKEYS! Third, and again, this is easily fixed (but I'm surprised it hasn't been yet) - how about a decent native terminal emulation? Terminal.app is shit! My terminal application should NOT eat my page up/page down keys.
*deep breath*. Ok, now that I've gotten that off my chest...