A Command Line Interface is an outdated user interface only useful for file management, system administration, and sophisticated text processing. Every other useful desktop application is superior when developed for the more modern graphical user interface (perhaps even the above applications can be made superior also). These include word processors, spreadsheets, presentation applications, desktop publishing, computer aided drafting, and image manipulation. GNU/Linux users often prefer the command line interface because the available graphical enviroments for GNU/Linux suck real bad. Once a far superior graphical interface gets developed for GNU/Linux look for many CLI diehards to spontaneously "see the light" or become very angry that a GUI can be better than a CLI, even though the CLI is more than two decades old and limited to the ASCII and Extended ASCII character set.
*sigh* I was really hoping that my post would be understood by *someone*.
<i>Next time you feel the need to "defend"./ from the predations (is that a real word?) of others, take a deep breath first and figure out a) if there's really something to defend against, and b) if your going to sound like a rabid./ Open Source (TM) zealot.</i>
We are slashdot. I am slashdot. <b>You are slashdot.</b>
I suppose you make that statement beleiving that we are open source zealots that see every propietary program as evil. You are one of us, though. Oh, wait! You mean everyone but you? Er? That doesn't make sense either, does it? So you mean the vocal majority, or is that the vocal minority? Then what about the unvocal majority?
I don't care about who the majority is. I don't represent slashdot anymore than you do. I believe what I believe and I am very secure in my beliefs.
Now about the open source critism. For about 20 years users have used propietary software. Why do you think they used propietary software? Because they didn't know about source code and they didn't know how much power that source code held. They still don't. Now users are controlled by large companies like AOL and Corel. The latest version of AOL, I've heard, disconnects you from other ISPs and causes their computers to crash. And because AOL are the only one's with the source code, they are in control and are the only one's with the power to fix it. If they choose to.
What about Corel? I don't know if they harm their customers the way AOL has but still, Corel has locked up the source also. You can't change Word Perfect. An administrator can't get someone to fix a flaw in Word Perfect or fix it in house. And if Linux was under the X license and GNU was under the X license, do you really think Corel Linux would be free software?
So us closed-minded zealots have two things to protect us: the GPL copyleft and our community. The copyleft and our community demands that the software does not become propietary, both legally and socially. For years we have used propietary software without knowing how we were being controlled. I don't think you are aware how you are being controlled. You see the technology and how it benefits you but you fail to look beyond the technology. Beyond the technology lies users, the future, and who serves who in the software market. Where are we going to be tommorrow? Ask Microsoft, ask Apple, ask Corel. But for God's sake don't ask me or you or Joe User. We do not have any say. This is what the Free Software Movement is all about. Freedom for users. Everyone.
These are not the words of a closed mind. These are the words of someone who is secure in his beleifs. You have confused to the two.
Come on now. The Rock is set-up for all his lines. The Rock would be some kind of fool in the real world, especially with Katz.
I can see it now:
Rock: At last...
Katz: Hello...
Rock: the Rock...
Katz: Sir, please quit shouting...
Rock: has returned to...
Katz: Security!
And the Rock disappears at the approach of a security guard both bigger than the Rack and with a far smaller ego.
Come on now. I think the WWF is the combination of the worst traits in man, The Rock doubly so. It is also sad at how popular it is and how much money it makes. At least it is doing better than that blasted Battle Dome thing after it.
Unless I'm missing a major feature of Berlin, I'd still classify it as 3rd generation. The three generations are a very broad classifications system and there's a large range withing each generation. They can be summarized as: simple screen element addressing (1st), resolution-dependent primitives (2nd), and resolution-independence (3rd). The 4th generation I had in mind is 3D (even if it's still displayed on a 2D screen).
First of all, I unfortunately may have mislead some. Right now Berlin is still in its beginning stages and is not nearly as developed as Quartz.
But it seems you have indeed missed a major feature of Berlin. You state a 3D interface as the 4th generation. Well there was some talk of implementing a 3D user interface on the Berlin mailing list some time ago. The theory is that the same applications could be run on all the Berlin compatable servers, text-based (the 1st generation interface in the article), traditional GUI somewhat like Quartz (3rd gen), and any others, including a 3D one. Berlin's API is abstract enough, in theory, to render the same application natively on any interface provided that someone has written a compatable server.
But in another sense, Berlin is 3rd generational. You see, as I understand it, Berlin itself is the implementation server of the 3rd generation GUI. Berlin isn't vector-based either according to their tutorial. So I guess you are more right than I am.
The display layer itself I guess depends on the server and the Berlin server is 3rd gen. But the API isn't resolution independent, it is interface independent. Much more abstract than Quartz to call it 4th generation.
Berlin will be vector-based, as near as I can tell according to their Berlin Tutorial. They aim for complete resolution independence, as I understand it, which is something I have been wanting for a long time, which I also don't think even MacOS X can do.
Actually they say that "In order to place pixels on the screen, a graphic can request a path, a glyph, or a raster is drawn." They define the terms on the sited article above as follows. "A path is a sequence of vectors, optionally accompanied by a sequence of scalars specifying the knot vector of the path if it represents a NURBS object. If the path has no knot vector, it is interpreted as a polygon."
A glyph is basically a piece of text that usually represents a single character, but may be several combined characters.
And about rasters "In some cases, it is not appropriate to draw using vector paths. In such cases, we have a facility for loading PNG rasters into the display server, and then assigning them to scene graph nodes. Such redrawing can be done very efficiently because the raster can live in the display server, and is appropriate for objects such as icons, mouse pointer images, or pixel data loaded from an external source."
It seems to me that Berlin is very much ahead of the game, even ahead of MacOS X and Win2000 while GNOME and KDE continue to compete with Windows as it is now. I am not dismissing either desktops because I currently use one for my desktop. That is the point. They are here now and provide applications that make GNU/Linux viable for the desktop now. But I see Berlin in GNU/Linux's future when X Windows System itself becomes obsolete, which may not be for a while yet. But if/when Berlin becomes standard and viable, it would be nice to see the competing operating systems catching up to GNU/Linux instead of it being the other way around. And, alas, Berlin proves that Free Software is innovative and the implementations are done right!
Now that a think about it, the Ars Technica article defines three generations of display software: the second generation being most current GUIs with still relatively pixel-based drawing, and the third being Quartz that is largely vector-based with some added capabilities. With this system, Berlin is definitely at least fourth generation with instead of drawing to pixels like the second generation or drawing to vectors like the third generation, Berlin draws to much more abstract drawing primitives on top GGI. So that the user may specialize the interface to any number of mediums like a character-based one or to the printer or a hand-held. Each medium requires a new server and the Berlin server itself (not all servers, just the one they are implementing now) specializes to the traditional GUI. But the same application should be able to run on all mediums, as long as the medium supports what the application requires. There is little possibility of a graphics editor to run on a character-terminal based servor but a file manager should certainly be able to run.
I know of no other GUI that has this kind of possibility. Think of a future where Berlin servors are like Window Managers today, based on user preference. Perhaps the Berlin servor for the more traditional GUI. But imagine an Enlightenment server, without any of the restraints of X Windows System.
The future looks really really bright for GNU/Linux.
NS has this kind of menus because this structure offers better usage then the orginal menu bar idea *if* your screen is large enough. These vertically stacked menus do not waste space anymore than a standard menu bar do. Being able to move then around makes them *very* convenient. I prefer them even today over every menu bar/start menu crap.
That is a very good point. It is probably a reason why WindowMaker has the Root Menu able to be dragged around, most users don't have that much screen space.
This NextStep way of the user interface is interesting to me. I only now realize how much of a mess our interfaces are that try to *hide* the information from the user.
...and the moon isn't full. But I beleive that the CNN article was a clearly direct attempt to stir up another Slashdot post. Then once the story hit Slashdot, the operatives under cover in foreign lands beep back *using Slashdot* for their medium of communication using some mind-boggling form code-encryption that appears to us as First Posts and random references to Natalie Portman.
My knowledge of the *step interface is based on WindowMaker. I read somewhere that much of the design of the *step interface was based on large computers with large monitors. That was why they have root menus instead of a global menu. Is this true?
I think this is a great idea. A unified configuration format would be a godsend for newbies and administrators, I think. It would also solve the backwards compatibility issue. This really needs to be submitted as a proposal to the LSB or one of the distribution, perhaps Debian.
Great idea. I would love to use a system that implemented this.
That is why you shouldn't edit XML by hand. I think XML was meant to be editted by an XML editor, not a plain text editor. Just add and delete entities and it would be much easier than using a plain text editor. With a proper DTD, you can get the available options for a configuration.
I really think UNIX should evolve to XML. Plain text encourages Yet Another Configuration Format. GUI tools would also benefit from the XML format. Dragging and dropping tags from one file to another.
The arguments for editing everything by hand usually stem from shoddy tools. Quite frankly, the common text editors seem to be the few stable applications used with GNU/Linux. I have tried LinuxConf but it's interface is terrible and its stability is lacking. I much prefer editing by hand compared to using LinuxConf.
I think it would be far nicer for the newbie to double click on resolve.conf.xml and get an XML editor window allowing the user to change the DNS numbers just by double-clicking on the entry. I don't think it would be wise to put all the configurations in One Be-All Tool. Keep the config files where they are but just put the files in a friendlier format -- XML. Have a nice SysEdit application that lists all the configuration files on the system and a short description of them -- the user double clicks on the file they want to edit and the XML editor comes up with that file ready to edit by double clicking. This is both user-friendly and The Unix Way.
Unix is a very old OS. It needs to evolve towards modern interfaces and file formats. The best way to do things then isn't necessarily the best way to do things now.
If the command-line interface isn't good for newbies and a traditional graphical user interface isn't good for power users, then I say we need to change the interface completely. An interface that speaks in a language that pretty much everyone understands -- not C.
Understand where you, yourself, are at in the user-OS continuum. Step back and gain a new vantage of computers in general. Understand the user. Understand also that the most hard core hacker is also a user. See the operating system as a solution. Not for developers, system administrators, or desktop users; you and everyone else here is aware of these niches and rant about it constantly. But for every other niche out there. Separate yourself from the computer and its technology and ask yourself how the computer can be more useful for the on-the-field scientist, the engineer, the desktop publisher, the presenter, or the captain. Others too. These people need an operating system that doesn't necessarily cater to the masses too. They need a solution in a language they understand.
Do not simply but a happy newbie-proof shell on top of a sturdy OS. Make the newbie-proof shell THE OS. Make it a guru-proof shell, also, by compromising both. Consolidate. Innovate. Integrate. There are no free features. Don't hide the operating system, expose it. Don't cater to the techno-phobe, there are many companies who are willing to cater to them for profit. If the interface doesn't fit well with the operating system then change the operating system.
Understand this and you will know what World Domination really means.
Ignore it and you are only servicing yourself.
Choose. But do not take too long. Your hesitation may be our undoing.
If you are a small company or an individual then you can get support from Red Hat. If you are large company then you can either fix the problem in house or contract it out from other companies.
But I fail to understand your post. You seem to be chasing your tail.
Closed Source, Proprietary/commercial software is good. It protects the investment of your purchase, it provides a constant resource for support. It provides the ability to roll out and standardize.
The same applies to free software. Distributing source code does not change this. Source code doesn't mean that it *has* to be modified. Companies can issue policies that their software should not be modified.
I don't get what this hype about linux is. YES, i love linux as another unix clone. I hate the open source/GPL contraversy, but i love the concept. Its great to think this world could be a wonderfully FREE place. But its not.
I don't understand the linux hype either. I wish it would go away because people are having the impression that there is little substance with GNU/Linux.
I do understand the "open source/GPL contravers" though. It is the friction between the new and old way of thinking about software.
None. Commercial implies that it is a business. Businesses make money for people that do the work and invest in the product. Business != Charity.
That is true. But I was speaking in respect to Be. The other poster said that there are other closed operating systems with comercial success. I was questioning if comercial success was worth limiting their user's use of the system.
Perhaps you missed this detail in my post?
Again. This is COMMERCIAL. Does buying a book entitle you to photocopy it and give it to your friends to read? No.
This would depend on the book.
No. That is the USERS wanting things, not the company. The OS itself does NOT rely on OSS material. Things like the GNU tools are bundled, but most of the OS is proprietry. A couple of drivers and the pcmcia stack are OSS code, but this has either been donated to Be inc. for use, or they have licenced (with money) the code from the original author. This is very fair.
I think I have made a mistake. I do beleive that Be is benefitting by porting Free Software to their operating. But there is no reason they should not. They have every right too.
No, let me check. I seem to remember that the announcement meant the OS _is_ about to become free
No. Free as in Free Software. Has nothing to do with price.
To make a last point - if you decide to make your software that you write open source, that is up to you. By doing so you are declaring its there for others to use as they see fit. You dont expect anything back in return. You yourself in complaining about the validity of making use of OSS code are arguing against its principles. making code availiable means exactly that - you cant have it both ways.
So you'd rather go without than buy something for which the code is not available?
No. I beleive that having software no longer being useful is a greater evil than using propietary software. I also said that I wouldn't *choose* propietary software, implying that I had a choice.
There's a huge amount of crap from people who are just posting to flame anyone who says that Linux isn't perfect / closed-source or commercial software can be good / Microsoft and Bill Gates isn't actually the devil come to Earth.
Linux *isn't* perfect.
Closed-source software can only be necessary, never good. Commercial software isn't the same as closed-source. Red Hat Linux is commercial yet mostly free.
Microsoft and Bill Gates has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I feel towards them the same I do towards Be Inc. Rather indifferent since they don't affect me to a large degree.
I imagine there are few people who feel the way you think they do. You are counting the vocal minority. There aren't as many zealots as you might be lead to beleive. There are also zealots both ways.
How is he doing that? Either you're a master at reading between the lines or it's you that's being short-sighted. His post simply says that anything that makes our lives better is good, no matter what that is. BeOS is far superior to Linux rently for any kind of multimedia work since it was designed with those tasks in mind. Linux is far superior to BeOS for networking, since it was designed with that in mind. Each is a solution for some problems - neither is the ultimate solution.
I percieved an insult when he labeled us with having a closed mind. That is reading the lines.
But I see that you fail to look beyond the technology. You label things as problems and solutions only as they apply to technology. But when software must be modified, there is a problem. Even if the user *wants* to modify the software, he cannot. This is a problem. The solution is Free Software. All users should be able to modify and freely redistribute software. This is why we must not use propietary software.
It's people like you who encourage people to post as Anonymous Coward when they say things which could be construed as being anti-Linux, just to avoid personal attacks and being moderated down to -1, Flamebait. Look at the recent GPL story.
Now it is you who are putting words in my mouth. I never accused anyone of being anti-Linux. I also beleive that personal attacks is the single easiest way of being coerced into a flamewar. I also am very much aware that I did attack the original poster personally with my short-sided comment. I wish to apoligize to him/her.
In effect you have completely misinterpreted my comment. I am against propietary software. This has little to do with Linux, open source zealotry, anonymous cowards, Bill Gates, or moderation.
Q : I still don't think that it will gain widespread acceptance until it is Open Sourced.
A : Why? look at all the major OS's that are commercial successes - Windows, MacOS, qnx et al.
Commercial success at what cost? What about the user who pays for an operating system but isn't allowed to modify or even redistribute it?
I think this is the single biggest reason *not* not to use Be. The second biggest reason is that Be is Free Software parasite. I have spent a little time browsing BeOS advocacy sites, they all want this or that application open sourced so that they can port it to BeOS. Does anyone else see the hypocracy in this? If it wasn't for Free Software, BeOS wouldn't have a decent compiler.
BeOS relies on free software but fails to play fair.
If users want Free Software then they would not choose BeOS. This is why BeOS won't achieve widespread acceptance. Users want Free Software.
I don't think you get it. There are good reasons for choosing Free Software. Some of us will not choose propietary software. This is our choice and our right.
Sometimes you need to look beyond the technology. Don't insult people for your own short-sightedness.
You do realize that this event further perpetuates the notion that GNU/Linux exists because of Microsoft, not despite. This is really unfair to many of us. A teacher at my school has a rather faint idea of what the operating system is about. He thinks it is for people who hate Microsoft. I fear he may be right.
I must ask. What does Microsoft have to do with GNU/Linux?
I can see that much of this event has already been planned. Perhaps it would be wise to have the attendees of this event wear formal dress.
It is also notable that actually most people interested in computers at all usually already know what GNU/Linux is, or rather "Linux". But many of them think is an operating system from people who hate Microsoft.
I sincerely hope that this event becomes a Pro-GNU/Linux event instead of an Anti-Microsoft event, but it seems like you are setting yourselves up easily for the latter.
I choose to avoid some sites because of the "shove it down your throat" philosophy. There any number of people who don't know they are not good web designers. The nice thing about straight HTML is that it mostly enforces some basic interface to the Web. Now if Joe Designer does his page in Flash, I have little idea what to expect. Do I click on this? Is it an outside link? Will it pop up it's own window? How long must I wait before the text becomes readable and quits dancing?
I can't wait until XML becomes ubiquitious so that two-thirds of the web designers learn what the difference between content and presentations is. Then maybe I can force my own stylesheet to the web.
I am sorry. I know how much our community is depending on Mozilla succeeding but can anyone verify that Mozilla is using 30+ megabytes of debugging code?
The more I hear this the more shallow it seems. I mean what use is debugging code when the debugging code is that intrusive in the program? Alpha or not, most software starts small then increases as features are added. Or is my impression wrong and software is bloated shortly after development begins and then gets trimmed of 20% by beta?
I would really like someone to verify that Mozilla is as bloated as it has been because of the debugging code. I would also ask why would that much debugging code be needed?
**Or is Mozilla very large and resource hungary without debugging code as well.**
I am sorry but I have many doubts. I really hope I am wrong. But I fear there is less substance in the "debugging code" scapegoat than a hopeful myth.
I know what this thread is turning into so I might as well diverge it into it's own thread.
A graphical user interface can do everything a command line interface can. WYSIWYG is an important thing if done properly.
Note: This Command Line vs GUI, not GNU/Linux vs Windows NT or GNU/Linux vs MacOS.
Configuration scripts make little sense from an interface point of view. The formats are not consistent. If they were consistent so you only need learn it once, then I would have no gripe with them. But you must learn it again and again for each application.
Someone needs to make a PowerUser's GUI to put all the naysayers to shame. There is nothing inherent in a GUI that makes it more cumbersome for experienced users. We just need someone with some imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
A Command Line Interface is an outdated user interface only useful for file management, system administration, and sophisticated text processing. Every other useful desktop application is superior when developed for the more modern graphical user interface (perhaps even the above applications can be made superior also). These include word processors, spreadsheets, presentation applications, desktop publishing, computer aided drafting, and image manipulation. GNU/Linux users often prefer the command line interface because the available graphical enviroments for GNU/Linux suck real bad. Once a far superior graphical interface gets developed for GNU/Linux look for many CLI diehards to spontaneously "see the light" or become very angry that a GUI can be better than a CLI, even though the CLI is more than two decades old and limited to the ASCII and Extended ASCII character set.
Scaling the graphics shouldn't be that difficult. But them sites that use pixel-specified tables may be in trouble.
*sigh* I was really hoping that my post would be understood by *someone*.
./ from the predations (is that a real word?) of others, take a deep breath first and figure out a) if there's really something to defend against, and b) if your going to sound like a rabid ./ Open Source (TM) zealot.</i>
<i>Next time you feel the need to "defend"
Did you read my post? a) and b) are in there.
KDE is more stable, has more features, and is overall a much better project, with nicer project leaders and a better toolkit.
You must not have used GNOME in a *long* while. After all, it was voted most improved project. Was KDE even nominated for anything? (honest question)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are slashdot.
We are slashdot. I am slashdot. <b>You are slashdot.</b>
I suppose you make that statement beleiving that we are open source zealots that see every propietary program as evil. You are one of us, though. Oh, wait! You mean everyone but you? Er? That doesn't make sense either, does it? So you mean the vocal majority, or is that the vocal minority? Then what about the unvocal majority?
I don't care about who the majority is. I don't represent slashdot anymore than you do. I believe what I believe and I am very secure in my beliefs.
Now about the open source critism. For about 20 years users have used propietary software. Why do you think they used propietary software? Because they didn't know about source code and they didn't know how much power that source code held. They still don't. Now users are controlled by large companies like AOL and Corel. The latest version of AOL, I've heard, disconnects you from other ISPs and causes their computers to crash. And because AOL are the only one's with the source code, they are in control and are the only one's with the power to fix it. If they choose to.
What about Corel? I don't know if they harm their customers the way AOL has but still, Corel has locked up the source also. You can't change Word Perfect. An administrator can't get someone to fix a flaw in Word Perfect or fix it in house. And if Linux was under the X license and GNU was under the X license, do you really think Corel Linux would be free software?
So us closed-minded zealots have two things to protect us: the GPL copyleft and our community. The copyleft and our community demands that the software does not become propietary, both legally and socially. For years we have used propietary software without knowing how we were being controlled. I don't think you are aware how you are being controlled. You see the technology and how it benefits you but you fail to look beyond the technology. Beyond the technology lies users, the future, and who serves who in the software market. Where are we going to be tommorrow? Ask Microsoft, ask Apple, ask Corel. But for God's sake don't ask me or you or Joe User. We do not have any say. This is what the Free Software Movement is all about. Freedom for users. Everyone.
These are not the words of a closed mind. These are the words of someone who is secure in his beleifs. You have confused to the two.
Come on now. The Rock is set-up for all his lines. The Rock would be some kind of fool in the real world, especially with Katz.
I can see it now:
Rock: At last...
Katz: Hello...
Rock: the Rock...
Katz: Sir, please quit shouting...
Rock: has returned to...
Katz: Security!
And the Rock disappears at the approach of a security guard both bigger than the Rack and with a far smaller ego.
Come on now. I think the WWF is the combination of the worst traits in man, The Rock doubly so. It is also sad at how popular it is and how much money it makes. At least it is doing better than that blasted Battle Dome thing after it.
Unless I'm missing a major feature of Berlin, I'd still classify it as 3rd generation. The three generations are a very broad classifications system and there's a large range withing each generation. They can be summarized as: simple screen element addressing (1st), resolution-dependent primitives (2nd), and resolution-independence (3rd). The 4th generation I had in mind is 3D (even if it's still displayed on a 2D screen).
First of all, I unfortunately may have mislead some. Right now Berlin is still in its beginning stages and is not nearly as developed as Quartz.
But it seems you have indeed missed a major feature of Berlin. You state a 3D interface as the 4th generation. Well there was some talk of implementing a 3D user interface on the Berlin mailing list some time ago. The theory is that the same applications could be run on all the Berlin compatable servers, text-based (the 1st generation interface in the article), traditional GUI somewhat like Quartz (3rd gen), and any others, including a 3D one. Berlin's API is abstract enough, in theory, to render the same application natively on any interface provided that someone has written a compatable server.
But in another sense, Berlin is 3rd generational. You see, as I understand it, Berlin itself is the implementation server of the 3rd generation GUI. Berlin isn't vector-based either according to their tutorial. So I guess you are more right than I am.
The display layer itself I guess depends on the server and the Berlin server is 3rd gen. But the API isn't resolution independent, it is interface independent. Much more abstract than Quartz to call it 4th generation.
This is all as I understand it.
Berlin will be vector-based, as near as I can tell according to their Berlin Tutorial. They aim for complete resolution independence, as I understand it, which is something I have been wanting for a long time, which I also don't think even MacOS X can do.
Actually they say that "In order to place pixels on the screen, a graphic can request a path, a glyph, or a raster is drawn." They define the terms on the sited article above as follows. "A path is a sequence of vectors, optionally accompanied by a sequence of scalars specifying the knot vector of the path if it represents a NURBS object. If the path has no knot vector, it is interpreted as a polygon."
A glyph is basically a piece of text that usually represents a single character, but may be several combined characters.
And about rasters "In some cases, it is not appropriate to draw using vector paths. In such cases, we have a facility for loading PNG rasters into the display server, and then assigning them to scene graph nodes. Such redrawing can be done very efficiently because the raster can live in the display server, and is appropriate for objects such as icons, mouse pointer images, or pixel data loaded from an external source."
It seems to me that Berlin is very much ahead of the game, even ahead of MacOS X and Win2000 while GNOME and KDE continue to compete with Windows as it is now. I am not dismissing either desktops because I currently use one for my desktop. That is the point. They are here now and provide applications that make GNU/Linux viable for the desktop now. But I see Berlin in GNU/Linux's future when X Windows System itself becomes obsolete, which may not be for a while yet. But if/when Berlin becomes standard and viable, it would be nice to see the competing operating systems catching up to GNU/Linux instead of it being the other way around. And, alas, Berlin proves that Free Software is innovative and the implementations are done right!
Now that a think about it, the Ars Technica article defines three generations of display software: the second generation being most current GUIs with still relatively pixel-based drawing, and the third being Quartz that is largely vector-based with some added capabilities. With this system, Berlin is definitely at least fourth generation with instead of drawing to pixels like the second generation or drawing to vectors like the third generation, Berlin draws to much more abstract drawing primitives on top GGI. So that the user may specialize the interface to any number of mediums like a character-based one or to the printer or a hand-held. Each medium requires a new server and the Berlin server itself (not all servers, just the one they are implementing now) specializes to the traditional GUI. But the same application should be able to run on all mediums, as long as the medium supports what the application requires. There is little possibility of a graphics editor to run on a character-terminal based servor but a file manager should certainly be able to run.
I know of no other GUI that has this kind of possibility. Think of a future where Berlin servors are like Window Managers today, based on user preference. Perhaps the Berlin servor for the more traditional GUI. But imagine an Enlightenment server, without any of the restraints of X Windows System.
The future looks really really bright for GNU/Linux.
NS has this kind of menus because this structure offers better usage then the orginal menu bar idea *if* your screen is large enough. These vertically stacked menus do not waste space anymore than a standard menu bar do. Being able to move then around makes them *very* convenient. I prefer them even today over every menu bar/start menu crap.
That is a very good point. It is probably a reason why WindowMaker has the Root Menu able to be dragged around, most users don't have that much screen space.
This NextStep way of the user interface is interesting to me. I only now realize how much of a mess our interfaces are that try to *hide* the information from the user.
...and the moon isn't full. But I beleive that the CNN article was a clearly direct attempt to stir up another Slashdot post. Then once the story hit Slashdot, the operatives under cover in foreign lands beep back *using Slashdot* for their medium of communication using some mind-boggling form code-encryption that appears to us as First Posts and random references to Natalie Portman.
NSA, CIA, and mere mortals, I'M ON TO YOU!!!
Muah hah hahahahahah!
My knowledge of the *step interface is based on WindowMaker. I read somewhere that much of the design of the *step interface was based on large computers with large monitors. That was why they have root menus instead of a global menu. Is this true?
I think this is a great idea. A unified configuration format would be a godsend for newbies and administrators, I think. It would also solve the backwards compatibility issue. This really needs to be submitted as a proposal to the LSB or one of the distribution, perhaps Debian.
Great idea. I would love to use a system that implemented this.
That is why you shouldn't edit XML by hand. I think XML was meant to be editted by an XML editor, not a plain text editor. Just add and delete entities and it would be much easier than using a plain text editor. With a proper DTD, you can get the available options for a configuration.
I really think UNIX should evolve to XML. Plain text encourages Yet Another Configuration Format. GUI tools would also benefit from the XML format. Dragging and dropping tags from one file to another.
The arguments for editing everything by hand usually stem from shoddy tools. Quite frankly, the common text editors seem to be the few stable applications used with GNU/Linux. I have tried LinuxConf but it's interface is terrible and its stability is lacking. I much prefer editing by hand compared to using LinuxConf.
I think it would be far nicer for the newbie to double click on resolve.conf.xml and get an XML editor window allowing the user to change the DNS numbers just by double-clicking on the entry. I don't think it would be wise to put all the configurations in One Be-All Tool. Keep the config files where they are but just put the files in a friendlier format -- XML. Have a nice SysEdit application that lists all the configuration files on the system and a short description of them -- the user double clicks on the file they want to edit and the XML editor comes up with that file ready to edit by double clicking. This is both user-friendly and The Unix Way.
Unix is a very old OS. It needs to evolve towards modern interfaces and file formats. The best way to do things then isn't necessarily the best way to do things now.
If the command-line interface isn't good for newbies and a traditional graphical user interface isn't good for power users, then I say we need to change the interface completely. An interface that speaks in a language that pretty much everyone understands -- not C.
Understand where you, yourself, are at in the user-OS continuum. Step back and gain a new vantage of computers in general. Understand the user. Understand also that the most hard core hacker is also a user. See the operating system as a solution. Not for developers, system administrators, or desktop users; you and everyone else here is aware of these niches and rant about it constantly. But for every other niche out there. Separate yourself from the computer and its technology and ask yourself how the computer can be more useful for the on-the-field scientist, the engineer, the desktop publisher, the presenter, or the captain. Others too. These people need an operating system that doesn't necessarily cater to the masses too. They need a solution in a language they understand.
Do not simply but a happy newbie-proof shell on top of a sturdy OS. Make the newbie-proof shell THE OS. Make it a guru-proof shell, also, by compromising both. Consolidate. Innovate. Integrate. There are no free features. Don't hide the operating system, expose it. Don't cater to the techno-phobe, there are many companies who are willing to cater to them for profit. If the interface doesn't fit well with the operating system then change the operating system.
Understand this and you will know what World Domination really means.
Ignore it and you are only servicing yourself.
Choose. But do not take too long. Your hesitation may be our undoing.
If you are a small company or an individual then you can get support from Red Hat. If you are large company then you can either fix the problem in house or contract it out from other companies.
But I fail to understand your post. You seem to be chasing your tail.
Closed Source, Proprietary/commercial software is good. It protects the investment of your purchase, it provides a constant resource for support. It provides the ability to roll out and standardize.
The same applies to free software. Distributing source code does not change this. Source code doesn't mean that it *has* to be modified. Companies can issue policies that their software should not be modified.
I don't get what this hype about linux is. YES, i love linux as another unix clone. I hate the open source/GPL contraversy, but i love the concept. Its great to think this world could be a wonderfully FREE place. But its not.
I don't understand the linux hype either. I wish it would go away because people are having the impression that there is little substance with GNU/Linux.
I do understand the "open source/GPL contravers" though. It is the friction between the new and old way of thinking about software.
None. Commercial implies that it is a business. Businesses make money for people that do the work and invest in the product. Business != Charity.
That is true. But I was speaking in respect to Be. The other poster said that there are other closed operating systems with comercial success. I was questioning if comercial success was worth limiting their user's use of the system.
Perhaps you missed this detail in my post?
Again. This is COMMERCIAL. Does buying a book entitle you to photocopy it and give it to your friends to read? No.
This would depend on the book.
No. That is the USERS wanting things, not the company. The OS itself does NOT rely on OSS material. Things like the GNU tools are bundled, but most of the OS is proprietry. A couple of drivers and the pcmcia stack are OSS code, but this has either been donated to Be inc. for use, or they have licenced (with money) the code from the original author. This is very fair.
I think I have made a mistake. I do beleive that Be is benefitting by porting Free Software to their operating. But there is no reason they should not. They have every right too.
No, let me check. I seem to remember that the announcement meant the OS _is_ about to become free
No. Free as in Free Software. Has nothing to do with price.
To make a last point - if you decide to make your software that you write open source, that is up to you. By doing so you are declaring its there for others to use as they see fit. You dont expect anything back in return. You yourself in complaining about the validity of making use of OSS code are arguing against its principles. making code availiable means exactly that - you cant have it both ways.
You are very correct. I made a mistake.
Software is to be shared.
So you'd rather go without than buy something for which the code is not available?
No. I beleive that having software no longer being useful is a greater evil than using propietary software. I also said that I wouldn't *choose* propietary software, implying that I had a choice.
There's a huge amount of crap from people who are just posting to flame anyone who says that Linux isn't perfect / closed-source or commercial software can be good / Microsoft and Bill Gates isn't actually the devil come to Earth.
Linux *isn't* perfect.
Closed-source software can only be necessary, never good. Commercial software isn't the same as closed-source. Red Hat Linux is commercial yet mostly free.
Microsoft and Bill Gates has nothing to do with religion. In fact, I feel towards them the same I do towards Be Inc. Rather indifferent since they don't affect me to a large degree.
I imagine there are few people who feel the way you think they do. You are counting the vocal minority. There aren't as many zealots as you might be lead to beleive. There are also zealots both ways.
How is he doing that? Either you're a master at reading between the lines or it's you that's being
short-sighted. His post simply says that anything that makes our lives better is good, no matter what that is. BeOS is far superior to Linux rently for any kind of multimedia work since it was designed with those tasks in mind. Linux is far superior to BeOS for networking, since it was designed with that in mind. Each is a solution for some problems - neither is the ultimate solution.
I percieved an insult when he labeled us with having a closed mind. That is reading the lines.
But I see that you fail to look beyond the technology. You label things as problems and solutions only as they apply to technology. But when software must be modified, there is a problem. Even if the user *wants* to modify the software, he cannot. This is a problem. The solution is Free Software. All users should be able to modify and freely redistribute software. This is why we must not use propietary software.
It's people like you who encourage people to post as Anonymous Coward when they say things which could be construed as being anti-Linux, just to avoid personal attacks and being moderated down to -1, Flamebait. Look at the recent GPL story.
Now it is you who are putting words in my mouth. I never accused anyone of being anti-Linux. I also beleive that personal attacks is the single easiest way of being coerced into a flamewar. I also am very much aware that I did attack the original poster personally with my short-sided comment. I wish to apoligize to him/her.
In effect you have completely misinterpreted my comment. I am against propietary software. This has little to do with Linux, open source zealotry, anonymous cowards, Bill Gates, or moderation.
Please quit arguing by false associations.
Q : I still don't think that it will gain widespread acceptance until it is Open Sourced.
A : Why? look at all the major OS's that are commercial successes - Windows, MacOS, qnx et al.
Commercial success at what cost? What about the user who pays for an operating system but isn't allowed to modify or even redistribute it?
I think this is the single biggest reason *not* not to use Be. The second biggest reason is that Be is Free Software parasite. I have spent a little time browsing BeOS advocacy sites, they all want this or that application open sourced so that they can port it to BeOS. Does anyone else see the hypocracy in this? If it wasn't for Free Software, BeOS wouldn't have a decent compiler.
BeOS relies on free software but fails to play fair.
If users want Free Software then they would not choose BeOS. This is why BeOS won't achieve widespread acceptance. Users want Free Software.
I don't think you get it. There are good reasons for choosing Free Software. Some of us will not choose propietary software. This is our choice and our right.
Sometimes you need to look beyond the technology. Don't insult people for your own short-sightedness.
You do realize that this event further perpetuates the notion that GNU/Linux exists because of Microsoft, not despite. This is really unfair to many of us. A teacher at my school has a rather faint idea of what the operating system is about. He thinks it is for people who hate Microsoft. I fear he may be right.
I must ask. What does Microsoft have to do with GNU/Linux?
I can see that much of this event has already been planned. Perhaps it would be wise to have the attendees of this event wear formal dress.
It is also notable that actually most people interested in computers at all usually already know what GNU/Linux is, or rather "Linux". But many of them think is an operating system from people who hate Microsoft.
I sincerely hope that this event becomes a Pro-GNU/Linux event instead of an Anti-Microsoft event, but it seems like you are setting yourselves up easily for the latter.
Microsoft has nothing to do with GNU/Linux.
I choose to avoid some sites because of the "shove it down your throat" philosophy. There any number of people who don't know they are not good web designers. The nice thing about straight HTML is that it mostly enforces some basic interface to the Web. Now if Joe Designer does his page in Flash, I have little idea what to expect. Do I click on this? Is it an outside link? Will it pop up it's own window? How long must I wait before the text becomes readable and quits dancing?
I can't wait until XML becomes ubiquitious so that two-thirds of the web designers learn what the difference between content and presentations is. Then maybe I can force my own stylesheet to the web.
One can dream.
I am sorry. I know how much our community is depending on Mozilla succeeding but can anyone verify that Mozilla is using 30+ megabytes of debugging code?
The more I hear this the more shallow it seems. I mean what use is debugging code when the debugging code is that intrusive in the program? Alpha or not, most software starts small then increases as features are added. Or is my impression wrong and software is bloated shortly after development begins and then gets trimmed of 20% by beta?
I would really like someone to verify that Mozilla is as bloated as it has been because of the debugging code. I would also ask why would that much debugging code be needed?
**Or is Mozilla very large and resource hungary without debugging code as well.**
I am sorry but I have many doubts. I really hope I am wrong. But I fear there is less substance in the "debugging code" scapegoat than a hopeful myth.
Please someone put me in the know.
I know what this thread is turning into so I might as well diverge it into it's own thread.
A graphical user interface can do everything a command line interface can. WYSIWYG is an important thing if done properly.
Note: This Command Line vs GUI, not GNU/Linux vs Windows NT or GNU/Linux vs MacOS.
Configuration scripts make little sense from an interface point of view. The formats are not consistent. If they were consistent so you only need learn it once, then I would have no gripe with them. But you must learn it again and again for each application.
Someone needs to make a PowerUser's GUI to put all the naysayers to shame. There is nothing inherent in a GUI that makes it more cumbersome for experienced users. We just need someone with some imagination.
Ok....time to go post on one of the more recent articles. :)
Heh. Old articles are cool to hang out in. It is where the population is low and the moderators dare not follow.
:)