It cant do true alpha channel effects.
It cant do scaling it cant do much anything from Xrender except some stuff to the fonts, big deal.
Speed isnt as important as you think when you have a fast computer, frame buffer is slower? SLOWER? Its frame buffer, if you have nvidia and a pentium 4 is it slower?
IF Apple, who has far less money than AOL, could produce OSX which destroys WindowsXP in ease of use.
In a year I think AOL could have a Linux that destroys WindowsXP in terms of ease of use, and that runs windows programs, all hidden from the user will be the advanced stuff. With a few billion dollars to develop KDE 4.0 and Xfree we could have thousands of paid programmers writing open source code which is then further enhanced because its open source by thousands of programmers who arent paid, what you'll end up with, is an OSX or better GUI within about a year.
Sure if they do like Eazel and waste all their money it wont work but this is AOL here not Eazel,
AOL has the money
Theres 0 percent chance of them making it closed source.
They always supported open source because they dont sell the software itself, they sell the services. The subscribers of AOL pay for winamp, netscape, icq, and so on. You dont buy this stuff, its free.
I dont think we need to worry about them closing source.
As far as other companies, do you really think IBM would sit around and let AOL take over their Linux? Hell no.
IBM would most likely Buy Mandrake and compete with AOL and keep Mandrake Open Source.
IBM invests 1 billion in Linux every year, Mandrake only costs about 20 million from what i hear.
Think about this situation, We all could end up getting paid through AOL. AOL subcribers start paying alittle extra a month and this gets paid to us to write open source software (kinda like Mozilla)
I think for the open source economy it could be a good thing, IF AOL has good motives. Subscription for services COULD ruin Microsofts entire idea of "Pay for licenses and products"
They have never directly put any other company out of business, and when they have they purchased the Company right before it did (CompuServe?)
AOL buys alot of companies that were doomed and saves them, for our sake, not really because its profitable (Netscape, Mirabilis, Nullsoft) all of these companies would have went out off business if AOL didnt save them.
The one buyout AOL made which i didnt like was the buyout of TimeWarner, I dont like Time Warner.
What I worry about is Time Warner controlling Redhat, if it were AOL(before the merger) there'd be nothing to worry about.
I'd sell Redhat if it were to AOL, but time warner worries me.
It could be an attempt to CONTROL the last grasp of freedom we have, Linux.
I dont know if its a good move to sell because I dont trust Time Warner, not because I dont trust AOL.
AOL seems to be on our side for the most part, as is IBM, I wouldnt mind IBM buying Redhat either.
By being on our side I mean they want to sell services to the consumer, not sell content.
I agree I dont think redhat should rush to sell to AOL. I do think a partnership however would be great.
I wouldnt mind a strategic alliance, a partnership, but a complete buyout could be a total disaster to linux like the buyout was a disaster for beOS.
A partnership, an investment by AOL, theres lots of ways to buy out a company without fully owning the company.
AOL wants to own redhat, its very very risky to sell to AOL simply because of their relationship with Warner, however I'd sell to AOL in a second if Redhat werent as profitable, or if I thought it would be good for the Linux community.
Right now, theres no way to know the motives of AOL, and losing redhat would be a very big blow to the linux community.
However consider how AOL treats Netscape and Nullsoft, I dont really think its such a bad idea in the short term, its the long term that I worry about.
Is it worth it to give linux a short term boost in the arm which will instantly ensure Linux a victory on the Desktop?
Or should we worry about how linux will be 10 years from now with AOL in control?
The Xrender extention is nice, but its going to take years like you said, just to get stuff like alpha channeling.
I agree X should use Xrender extentions however what are people to do in the meantime while OSX and XP kick our asses in the eye candy department and everyone says "Linux on the Desktop is dead" Before it even gets a chance to come out of the gates?
Whats wrong with having a directfb or berlin alternative which unlike Xrender, do the stuff you talk about RIGHT NOW.
I honestly dont think the media will sit and wait for 2 years or more while you slowly code Xrender.
So the option is, wait a few more years for Xrender to be completed, or check out stuff like directfb and berlin which claim to do what Xrender will do years from now.
Whats the best option? People want alpha channeling, scaling and OSX like effects, alternatives claim to be able to do it now, they port GTK and QT, and they claim to be compatible with X.
We shouldnt ditch X completely, however newer computers should not be using X.
Berlin, DirectFB, or whatever decides to become the alternative to X, should get support from the community as X does. The alternative to X should be backward compatible with X, it should run all or most of our programs, and most people on the desktop will be fine with this.
X should remain around for people with older hardware, people who arent on the desktop who need absolute stability etc.
For the desktop, I'd rather have directfb, berlin, any of these alternatives as long as my programs run.
No one who supports berlin or directfb is saying to move away from or ditch X, what people are saying is we need an alternative to X, X has flaws which will take 2-3 years to fix through extentions, why? Why not use something better if its better for the desktop user? Use whats best for your hardware.
Also the Xfree86 people and berlin people should think about setting up a subscription like transgaming style service so they can boost development somehow, because sure you can claim X is great, but if it takes 2-3 years to catch up to OSX, its not great at this very moment.
Berlin will be good if its compatible with X but the problem with berlin is its so new that its dangerous.
I think something more like directFB will be fine, however if berlin development gets some kinda boost, well ill switch to berlin as long as it runs all my programs.
Please mod me up because this IS going to be something alot of people will discuss.
First, Lets talk abou the situation between AOL and Microsoft. Remember, AOL and Microsoft are practically at each others throats. There was a Memo, which mentioned possible strategies to handle Microsoft.
They tired ot make a deal and it failed.
They are supporters of Mozilla, Netscape and Microsoft is against them on every single application.
AOL is known for buying the "Cool" companies, Mirabilis, Nullsoft,
I'm surprised AOL didnt buy Napster, and I bet if there wasnt such a bad legal situation they would have.
They compete with Microsoft on the ISP market, on the Instant Messager, The Media Player, The Browser, The only thing left for AOL to do, is go out and create AOL Linux.
Now we all know, A Company who wants to create an OS is NOT going to start from scratch. They also arent going to compete with the industry leader (the mistake Corel made against Redhat in the first place)
What they will do if they are as big as AOL, is Simply buy the market leader, and then create AOL Linux through Redhat.
They could also fund KDE or Gnome Development, and Xfree86, and perhaps edit the kernel a bit.
To create a competiting desktop OS with Linux, AOL would only have to invest a few hundred million dollars to buy redhat, and maybe 100 million more to fund development of the Linux interface until its on OSX levels.
AOL funds Mozilla, its not hard to believe AOL will do this.
AOL is also in the situation now where Microsofts next version of Windows may put them out of business on the desktop market, They are backe dinto a corner, most companies when backe dinto a corner, fight back in desperate ways.
Buying redhat would be a move anyone who knows Business would expect AOL to make.
Why should someone pay to donate their bandwidth
on
Review of Pay Napster
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I mean if you are stupid enough to pay to give bandwidth and harddrive space you are stupid.
Maybe if Napster were more like an mp3.com or CDnow it would work
Because hes smarter. Yes its possible for someone to be smarter than you. I dont know coding as well as him, but i didnt have a computer since I was 6, maybe if i did, I'd be as good as him as I'd have no excuse to use.
Stop playing games and read 4-5 books on C and kernel s
Slashdot Mirror
You act like stuff cant be ported.
Port GTK if it isnt ported already.
Port QT (its even ported to windows)
Port Gnome and KDE.
The other junk you dont need.
KDE only uses Xrender for its fonts.
It cant do true alpha channel effects.
It cant do scaling it cant do much anything from Xrender except some stuff to the fonts, big deal.
Speed isnt as important as you think when you have a fast computer, frame buffer is slower? SLOWER? Its frame buffer, if you have nvidia and a pentium 4 is it slower?
Berlin I cannot comment on.
Oh Really?
So which app is using Alpha channelling?
It makes perfect since to buy Lindows, if not, then go for Redhat.
IF Apple, who has far less money than AOL, could produce OSX which destroys WindowsXP in ease of use.
In a year I think AOL could have a Linux that destroys WindowsXP in terms of ease of use, and that runs windows programs, all hidden from the user will be the advanced stuff. With a few billion dollars to develop KDE 4.0 and Xfree we could have thousands of paid programmers writing open source code which is then further enhanced because its open source by thousands of programmers who arent paid, what you'll end up with, is an OSX or better GUI within about a year.
Sure if they do like Eazel and waste all their money it wont work but this is AOL here not Eazel,
AOL has the money
Theres 0 percent chance of them making it closed source.
They always supported open source because they dont sell the software itself, they sell the services. The subscribers of AOL pay for winamp, netscape, icq, and so on. You dont buy this stuff, its free.
I dont think we need to worry about them closing source.
As far as other companies, do you really think IBM would sit around and let AOL take over their Linux? Hell no.
IBM would most likely Buy Mandrake and compete with AOL and keep Mandrake Open Source.
IBM invests 1 billion in Linux every year, Mandrake only costs about 20 million from what i hear.
Really, AOL doesnt profit from selling software, Microsoft does.
AOL is a company who would support open source software, in fact they already do.
So their philosophy on open source is compatible.
The only thing i would worry about is the influence of Time Warner and the RIAA.
Thats Time Warner not AOL, They merged but AOL has more control, at least we hope so
Then again i bet they are funding Lindows.
Linux = Redhat
AOL = INTERNET
To corperations and casual users this is a constant.
Think about this situation, We all could end up getting paid through AOL. AOL subcribers start paying alittle extra a month and this gets paid to us to write open source software (kinda like Mozilla)
I think for the open source economy it could be a good thing, IF AOL has good motives. Subscription for services COULD ruin Microsofts entire idea of "Pay for licenses and products"
If it were a sale to AOL there wouldnt be anything to worry about there, but Time Warner?!
The Movie Company? The Magazine Company?
Now, They do sell content, and they do sell services.
Which side are they on?
AOL sells services, I can imagine them supporting Open source even faster than I can imagine IBM doing it.
Time Warner however, is dangerous, isnt Time Warner a part of the RIAA? Their influence in Linux is what would worry me.
AOL for a big company has earned alot of Respect.
They have never directly put any other company out of business, and when they have they purchased the Company right before it did (CompuServe?)
AOL buys alot of companies that were doomed and saves them, for our sake, not really because its profitable (Netscape, Mirabilis, Nullsoft) all of these companies would have went out off business if AOL didnt save them.
The one buyout AOL made which i didnt like was the buyout of TimeWarner, I dont like Time Warner.
What I worry about is Time Warner controlling Redhat, if it were AOL(before the merger) there'd be nothing to worry about.
I'd sell Redhat if it were to AOL, but time warner worries me.
It could be an attempt to CONTROL the last grasp of freedom we have, Linux.
I dont know if its a good move to sell because I dont trust Time Warner, not because I dont trust AOL.
AOL seems to be on our side for the most part, as is IBM, I wouldnt mind IBM buying Redhat either.
By being on our side I mean they want to sell services to the consumer, not sell content.
I think a partner ship is better
I agree I dont think redhat should rush to sell to AOL. I do think a partnership however would be great.
I wouldnt mind a strategic alliance, a partnership, but a complete buyout could be a total disaster to linux like the buyout was a disaster for beOS.
A partnership, an investment by AOL, theres lots of ways to buy out a company without fully owning the company.
AOL wants to own redhat, its very very risky to sell to AOL simply because of their relationship with Warner, however I'd sell to AOL in a second if Redhat werent as profitable, or if I thought it would be good for the Linux community.
Right now, theres no way to know the motives of AOL, and losing redhat would be a very big blow to the linux community.
However consider how AOL treats Netscape and Nullsoft, I dont really think its such a bad idea in the short term, its the long term that I worry about.
Is it worth it to give linux a short term boost in the arm which will instantly ensure Linux a victory on the Desktop?
Or should we worry about how linux will be 10 years from now with AOL in control?
We arent talking about where Xrender is, We only care about when apps will actually use it.
We need apps using it right now. Apps can use berlin and directfb right now.
X sucks at rendering compared to its competition.
OSX totally destroys it, even WindowsXP,
The Xrender extention is nice, but its going to take years like you said, just to get stuff like alpha channeling.
I agree X should use Xrender extentions however what are people to do in the meantime while OSX and XP kick our asses in the eye candy department and everyone says "Linux on the Desktop is dead" Before it even gets a chance to come out of the gates?
Whats wrong with having a directfb or berlin alternative which unlike Xrender, do the stuff you talk about RIGHT NOW.
I honestly dont think the media will sit and wait for 2 years or more while you slowly code Xrender.
So the option is, wait a few more years for Xrender to be completed, or check out stuff like directfb and berlin which claim to do what Xrender will do years from now.
Whats the best option? People want alpha channeling, scaling and OSX like effects, alternatives claim to be able to do it now, they port GTK and QT, and they claim to be compatible with X.
I think this should be discusssed more.
We shouldnt ditch X completely, however newer computers should not be using X.
Berlin, DirectFB, or whatever decides to become the alternative to X, should get support from the community as X does. The alternative to X should be backward compatible with X, it should run all or most of our programs, and most people on the desktop will be fine with this.
X should remain around for people with older hardware, people who arent on the desktop who need absolute stability etc.
For the desktop, I'd rather have directfb, berlin, any of these alternatives as long as my programs run.
No one who supports berlin or directfb is saying to move away from or ditch X, what people are saying is we need an alternative to X, X has flaws which will take 2-3 years to fix through extentions, why? Why not use something better if its better for the desktop user? Use whats best for your hardware.
Also the Xfree86 people and berlin people should think about setting up a subscription like transgaming style service so they can boost development somehow, because sure you can claim X is great, but if it takes 2-3 years to catch up to OSX, its not great at this very moment.
Berlin will be good if its compatible with X but the problem with berlin is its so new that its dangerous.
I think something more like directFB will be fine, however if berlin development gets some kinda boost, well ill switch to berlin as long as it runs all my programs.
Not for the desktop, what we actually need, is something more like directFB which is simply compatible with X.
X can stay around too for computers which cant handle the it.
I think X shouldnt be replaced, however there should be alternatives.
Please mod me up because this IS going to be something alot of people will discuss.
First, Lets talk abou the situation between AOL and Microsoft. Remember, AOL and Microsoft are practically at each others throats. There was a Memo, which mentioned possible strategies to handle Microsoft.
They tired ot make a deal and it failed.
They are supporters of Mozilla, Netscape and Microsoft is against them on every single application.
AOL is known for buying the "Cool" companies, Mirabilis, Nullsoft,
I'm surprised AOL didnt buy Napster, and I bet if there wasnt such a bad legal situation they would have.
They compete with Microsoft on the ISP market, on the Instant Messager, The Media Player, The Browser, The only thing left for AOL to do, is go out and create AOL Linux.
Now we all know, A Company who wants to create an OS is NOT going to start from scratch. They also arent going to compete with the industry leader (the mistake Corel made against Redhat in the first place)
What they will do if they are as big as AOL, is Simply buy the market leader, and then create AOL Linux through Redhat.
They could also fund KDE or Gnome Development, and Xfree86, and perhaps edit the kernel a bit.
To create a competiting desktop OS with Linux, AOL would only have to invest a few hundred million dollars to buy redhat, and maybe 100 million more to fund development of the Linux interface until its on OSX levels.
AOL funds Mozilla, its not hard to believe AOL will do this.
AOL is also in the situation now where Microsofts next version of Windows may put them out of business on the desktop market, They are backe dinto a corner, most companies when backe dinto a corner, fight back in desperate ways.
Buying redhat would be a move anyone who knows Business would expect AOL to make.
I mean if you are stupid enough to pay to give bandwidth and harddrive space you are stupid.
Maybe if Napster were more like an mp3.com or CDnow it would work
Because hes smarter. Yes its possible for someone to be smarter than you. I dont know coding as well as him, but i didnt have a computer since I was 6, maybe if i did, I'd be as good as him as I'd have no excuse to use.
Stop playing games and read 4-5 books on C and kernel s
Sunblade is cheap
Micrsoft wont sue you if your name Starts with Win, but if it Starts with Lin, look out.
Lindows in my opinion will never be as successful as Windows unless its better in every way.
Right now its better in alot of ways, but not better in every way.
Lindows needs to be easier to use than Windows.