Sorry, I have to disagree with this. Presumably both parties already know what the final printed size (in physical measurements) has to be. That is, presumably if you are sending it to a printer you already know whether you are going to be targetting an 8.5x11" page or a 3x5" photo size or what have you. Asking for an image at 300 dpi is a natural way to say give me an image with enough pixels to cover the target area at 300 dpi.
So I don't really think that the printer is a moron. Granted, if the target printed area hadn't been agreed upon and he asked for a 300DPI image I would say 300DPI to cover what? But as I said, presumably if you're sending it to the printer you already know how many inches you need to cover, so specifying 300DPI and doing some basic math will tell you how many pixels you need.
For the math challenged, let's say you wanted to cover a full 8.5x11 piece of paper. To do that at 300 DPI you'd need 8.5" * 300 dpi = 2550 pixels and 11" * 300 dpi = 3300 pixels.
I think the main problem is that printing support is such a joke in the most popular desktop OS (Windows) that people get confused. Did you know that Windows actually uses the DPI on your monitor to determine DPI for everything? Yes, that's right. Set your monitor to "large fonts" and images will actually print smaller when using basic Win32 DC drawing.
Actually, CW8 compiles Objective-C and even Objective-C++ just fine and can take full advantage of a G4.
I have no idea how well its code works on a G5 but I'd be willing to bet pretty well because I'm almost postive that Photoshop is compiled with it. At least, if you are doing plugins you must use CodeWarrior on Mac.
The thing is, PRIMARY and CLIPBOARD are two different beasts. You can select text (which incidently makes it PRIMARY). You can copy that text (which often means copying PRIMARY to CLIPBOARD, but not if some other application has since taken over PRIMARY). You can select text in another app if you haven't done so already (making it PRIMARY) and you can then paste the two selections independently. Clipboard via the usual paste and PRIMARY via the middle mouse button.
For instance, right-click a link in Mozilla and copy it to the clipboard. Then select some text off the page. Now, paste the link via the copy command, and hit the middle mouse button to paste the text.
Yeah, I know it sounds confusing, but if novices never even know it's there and some X11 people really appreciate it then I think it's worth it.
Hmm. As far as I can tell the clipboard works just fine. Selecting text in an application will make it the PRIMARY selection and it can be pasted with the middle mouse button in to other X11 apps.
Using an X11 apps copy feature will place the selection into the CLIPBOARD buffer which will make it available to all applications (including Mac ones).
In GVIM you can do this by prefixing your commands with "+ (quote plus). As in 4"+yy or Vjjj"+y or "+P or "+p among others. With GNOME and KDE apps you simply use their Copy/Paste features.
If your X11 app does not support CLIPBOARD, then you can use xcutsel to transfer PRIMARY to CLIPBOARD which will allow you to paste into OS X apps. Likewise, you can select text in OS X, copy it, then transfer CLIPBOARD to PRIMARY and use middle-mouse paste.
Granted, I'd love to see middle-mouse paste implemented across the board in OS X. It's a feature that would not confuse novice users as all OS X apps already have normal Copy/Paste and novice users don't have middle mouse buttons anyway and it would really benefit those of us who appreciate having that extra quick select and paste a la X11.
It seems to me that Cocoa could easily support this as most Cocoa apps that do anything with text use the absolutely wonderful NSText system which could have this feature added quite readily.
I for one would be willing to live without the ability to do this from Carbon and Classic apps.
Come to think of it, I'd be willing to bet this could be done using an Objective-C category. Actually, I'm absolutely positive it could be done that way without even having Apple's source. Any takers?
Did you not originally say BSD == UNIX and then repeat yourself in this message saying BSD == UNIX.
As far as I know, FreeBSD is certainly a BSD and by basing a kernel (if only a Mach personality) off of FreeBSD wouldn't that (by your standards) make Mac OS X a true UNIX?
Most normal people refer to even Linux as being a UNIX-like system (which it certainly is) or often remove the "-like" (as I did when referring to OS X) and simply refer to it as a UNIX system. That's why I said "God, that's being pedantic." OS X smells enough like UNIX to me.
And what's with the frothing Mac loonies comment? That and the relative tone of your message. Yes, I know some people refuse to refer to OS X as a UNIX, and even I wouldn't normally consider it as a true UNIX, but I do consider it to be UNIX-like and I do often drop the "-like" qualifier because it's bullshit. As far as I'm concerned, Linux also smells enouh like a UNIX to be colloquially referred to as one.
I expected a lot more from someone with a 4-digit Slashdot ID. Perhaps a discussion on the various points of what does/does not make a UNIX. Instead a got an uncalled-for flamewar.
Perhaps it's worthless in a discussion this old, but I second this.
A superior open source desktop is something I'd still really love to see, but what I want right now is a superior desktop of any kind (though hopefully UNIX). OS X fits that bill quite nicely and has been for me for a year now.
Anyone who is serious about working on UNIX/Linux should get a Mac-- especially the people working on desktop environments. There's a lot to learn from Mac OS X that really needs to make its way into Linux.
Fortunately, there's still hope. GNUstep is a relatively unknown project and I see a lot of potential there. One advantage of GNUstep is that design does not have to be done-- the API was designed by NeXT years ago. And from what I've seen, the GNOME and KDE people still haven't even come anywhere near the awesome design that NeXT did. Granted it's Objective-C, but if you don't know it, you should learn it-- it's a very nice language.
I'm actually working on a Cocoa port of wxWindows which I hope to eventually have working on GNUstep. Nearly instant native applications on Win32, X11 (drawing its own widgets), Motif, GTK, Mac (Classic and Carbon) and eventually Mac Cocoa and GNUstep.
In any case, at least it uses a lot of FreeBSD code for the UNIX kernel personality running on Mach. So considering that the UNIX personality IS a BSD derivative, then I suppose even by your standards it is UNIX, is it not?
I don't care about the Mac's legendary ease of use, I'm not braindead.
You know, I think that's one of the most ignorant comments I've heard on Slashdot-- and that's saying something!
I certainly don't consider myself braindead and I love using my Mac. I think the user interface of OS X is leaps and bounds beyond that of Windows or any of the latest Linux desktops.
I also know of plenty of very intelligent people who use Macs simply because they are easier to use and it allows them to focus on the task at hand. Not everyone takes the slop they're fed and feels that it's "good enough" (which is basically what you are saying). Some of us actually don't mind paying a little bit extra-- if even there is any extra to be paid. $3,000 for a dual 2GHz 64-bit machine is pretty damn low IMHO.
Of course, my guess is your needs are different than mine. My needs dictate that I have a fast and easy to use UNIX system. The cheapest computer meeting those needs is a PowerMac.
Perhaps instead you are interested in playing the latest whiz-bang gaming title-- in that case you want a Pee Cee.
Re:Next computer will be a mac
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 1
Troll? Mods, please have some respect for people with logged in accounts even if their comments aren't the most brilliant on Slashdot.
Of course with any computer you have to do updates and read the EULAs. The good thing about a Mac is that the EULAs are generally straightforward, and updating via software update is a breeze-- at least most of the time.:-/
I personally do feel it's worth the extra $500, but don't take my word for it. Go spend some time on a Mac and use it for a few hours each day for a few weeks. As you go you'll find out that it is in fact a very easy to use computer and that even for someone with a lot of computer experience not having to think too hard to use the computer is a good thing.
Disclaimer: I'm a UNIX nut (hah) and now a Mac OS X evangelist, so take it with a grain of salt.
Well, I'm glad you showed some restraint! Obviously I have no idea who you are and what you've done, so don't take what I said personally.
It was more for the benefit of the losers who lurk around here and think that if they just sent one more letter with their name on it as part of a giant mail bomb to a senator that they're making a difference.
In reality, what one is doing is further entrenching the view that our congress critters should bow down to the people who bitch the most (note: not necessarily the majority or even a good choice). Now, in the EFFs case I can say I mostly agree with their views, but I'll take the high road and write my own letter when I want to get the message through.
As you said, the only thing these form letters do is show the congress person that X number of people decided to send it. Think of how many groups write those letters. Don't you think it would be kind of boring to only get statistics like "X number of people wanted generally what was in this letter" and "Y number of people wanted what was written in this letter."
If an issue really bothers you, then write a personal note and mention that the EFFs letter (provide a URL) closely matches your view point. Specifically point out a few things you do or don't agree with.
I just wish more people would either be actively involved or not. I don't see this passive involvement as donig any good except making people feel like they did something.
Well, considering you sent the typical political action group letter, I'm hardly surprised by you getting the typical political response.
If the issue really concerns you, why not write your own letter and fax or preferrably mail it.
I'd love to see a law outlawing the sending of form letters on consituents behalf. It's a waste of taxpayer money for the staff to read them. Furthermore, it's a bastardation of the political process. Instead of receiving letters from people with genuine concerns, a barrage of form letters are received showing the views of people too stupid and lazy to send a personal note.
Now lets get into the article itself. This is another example of a company that is willing to cooperate, but has had a few snags in their plans. They've said they're going to post the code online (which they don't have to do) so lets see if they do.
Well, I think giving them a full year to allow their customers access to the code is more than enough. I mean, after a year it's pretty hard to claim any excuses whatsoever.
Furthermore, this isn't a problem unique to free software. Had they used a commercial library without licensing it properly they'd be in just as much hot water. Simply do not use GPL software in a program you don't intend to distribute in accordance with the GPL.
Re:Slightly OT: Linking static libs w/GPL'd code?
on
What if SCO is Right?
·
· Score: 1
Is a lack of polished open source applications really a problem?
Back when I was a Linux and Slashdot n00b I always thought this. Mostly because of comments like yours suggesting that open source software is no good unless it has polished applications.
I have since changed my tune. Got a couple of commercial applications out there using open source software (i.e. BSD or LGPL libraries).
Let's face it, the typical open source development process is absolutely horrible for developing end-user desktop applications. However, the development process is perfect for system components and other libraries.
The problem we have now is that a lot of people are trying to develop applications for Linux using an open source development process simply because there are no other applications. What Linux really needs is a healthy commercial software market.
The problem is, few developers want to waste resources on Linux when they can develop for Win32. Furthermore, most developers don't realize that writing cross-platform software can actually be easier than writing to Win32 or Linux alone.
Enter wxWindows. It's a mature C++ library that has ports for MSW, Mac (Classic and Carbon), X11 (drawing its own widgets), Motif, GTK, and others. It has quite a bit of similarity with MFC (only in a good way though) which makes it easy for MFC teams to get started.
Is it perfect? No. There's a few rough edges. Some people (particularly Microsoft and/or Java developers) are displeased with the way windows (not top-level) are owned by their parents. Some people are displeased that wxWindows doesn't use templates (it uses macros to accomplish the same thing). Some people are displeased that wxWindows doesn't use namespaces. Of course, everything is prefixed with "wx" anyway, so it's kind of a moot point.
In short, if your toolkit choice is based on having the latest whiz-bang C++ features, then forget about wxWindows. However, if your toolkit choice is based on usability, then you definitely want to go with wxWindows. There are bindings for (at least) Python, PERL, Java, and C# (actually, any.NET language) so it's your choice what language to use.
Furthermore, development continues. I am personally working on a port of wxWindows to Cocoa and hopefully GNUstep (once mainline GCC can do Objective-C++).
So, it seems the best course of action for a Linux advocate is to get the Windows and Mac developers using a toolkit like wxWindows. Perhaps some Slashdotters reading this are stuck in MFC hell? For the next project suggest wxWindows. Maybe even for this one, an MFC->wxWindows port generally only takes 3 months from what I've heard (I was smart and started with wxWindows:-). Once there are some good applications out there using a cross-platform toolkit, it becomes really easy for the move to Linux to take place. At that point it will happen slowly and naturally. A few developers will release Linux versions, then a few more. Then eventually all of the good apps are available for many platforms.
Is it a dream? A bit of one. But I think it's reasonable enough that we just might see it happen in the next 5-10 years. Remember, 5-10 is not really an eternity, even in the computing world. It's time we take a step back and realize the only decent thing that came out of the last 5-10 years was ubiquitous Internet access. Beyond that, there has been little innovation except for this and that whiz-bang feature that Microsoft adds with every release.
We do this in Virginia as well (at least here in Hampton). However, instead of pencils they provide Sharpie markers. As anyone familiar with OMR knows, while ballpoint pens do not work, almost all markers do. Sharpies actually tend to work better than pencils.
No stray graphite dust, no eraser dust, no possibility of erasing after the fact. I've gotta say that I have been thoroughly impressed by the OMR system in combination with the Sharpie markers. The circles and text are huge (for those with poorer vision). The layout is straightforward (big oval next to big text).
Frankly, if you are too stupid to use the OMR/Sharpie then you really don't deserve to be voting.
Being a former BBS Sysop as well as a former OS/2 user (they kind of go hand in hand) I feel your pain.
Lately I've been using Mac OS X and I totally love it. There are, of course, some differences such as usable 2-button mouse vs. 1-button mouse. However, for the most part I feel the same spirit that IBM put into OS/2, Apple has put into Mac OS X. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that OS X derives directly from NeXT. Another factor is that OS/2 always was like a really powerful MacOS (classic).
It's really hard to put down in words, but both OS/2 and OS X just feel "right." Use either one for a few hours and you tend to feel like a fish out of water if you've used Windows all your life. Spend a week or two with either one and you start to realize that the polished user interfaces and attention to details really makes a difference.
Actually, he was held without charge but with the public's knowledge. The parent post is right, this isn't even close to being disappeared, and it's inappropriate to distill the meaning lest we forget what being disappeared really means.
Reminds me of PETA a few months back likening pictures of animals being slaughtered to jews in concentration camps during Nazi germany (they showed the photos side-by-side with some comments about how it was just as bad). The worst part of it is that the local news (I'm around Norfolk) interviewed the president of PETA and she really didn't understand the problem, giving some off-the-cuff (i.e. poorly thought out) answer about how she thought it was a good comparison.
The fact that he worked in a computer related field does in fact have a lot to do with this. A lot of computer professionals are very left-leaning. Worse yet, many are young and naive. While most liberals are not young and naive, it seems the majority of young and naive people are liberals.
The really sad part is that both the liberal and conservative camps have their fair share of good ideas, but hard-liners are too opposed to different thinking and instead are just looking for a fight.
You see it on Slashdot every day. Irrational discussion does not bode well for the represntative democracy that we have. It takes compromise. Furthermore, it takes a well-informed (not well-brainwashed) public.
Making statements about how our country is rapidly heading towards totalitarianism does not bode well with the general public. Statements likening holding someone with public knowledge to holding someone without public knowledge do not fare well either. Nobody wants to hear this crap. It makes people feel helpless. It makes people feel like there's nothing they can do. It is that feeling that is really driving this country towards totalitarianism.
Reminds me of a great Beatles song: "You say you want a revolution, well you know we'd all love to see the plan."... "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow!"
The best line I've ever heard came from a Greenpeace activist driving a sick little moped (blue clouds of poorly-tuned two-stroke, measurably more noxious than the exhaust from any well-tuned land-yacht SUV that he also complained about) [...]
Let me guess, same type of person who throws paint on someone's mink coat while wearing a leather belt and aligator skin boots?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I have to disagree with this. Presumably both parties already know what the final printed size (in physical measurements) has to be. That is, presumably if you are sending it to a printer you already know whether you are going to be targetting an 8.5x11" page or a 3x5" photo size or what have you. Asking for an image at 300 dpi is a natural way to say give me an image with enough pixels to cover the target area at 300 dpi.
So I don't really think that the printer is a moron. Granted, if the target printed area hadn't been agreed upon and he asked for a 300DPI image I would say 300DPI to cover what? But as I said, presumably if you're sending it to the printer you already know how many inches you need to cover, so specifying 300DPI and doing some basic math will tell you how many pixels you need.
For the math challenged, let's say you wanted to cover a full 8.5x11 piece of paper. To do that at 300 DPI you'd need 8.5" * 300 dpi = 2550 pixels and 11" * 300 dpi = 3300 pixels.
I think the main problem is that printing support is such a joke in the most popular desktop OS (Windows) that people get confused. Did you know that Windows actually uses the DPI on your monitor to determine DPI for everything? Yes, that's right. Set your monitor to "large fonts" and images will actually print smaller when using basic Win32 DC drawing.
Dude, you're moron if you think you cannot find any copy of Mac OS that you please on the internet. Best of all, there's no annoying product key.
Actually, CW8 compiles Objective-C and even Objective-C++ just fine and can take full advantage of a G4.
I have no idea how well its code works on a G5 but I'd be willing to bet pretty well because I'm almost postive that Photoshop is compiled with it. At least, if you are doing plugins you must use CodeWarrior on Mac.
That's not quite what I'd need though.
The thing is, PRIMARY and CLIPBOARD are two different beasts. You can select text (which incidently makes it PRIMARY). You can copy that text (which often means copying PRIMARY to CLIPBOARD, but not if some other application has since taken over PRIMARY). You can select text in another app if you haven't done so already (making it PRIMARY) and you can then paste the two selections independently. Clipboard via the usual paste and PRIMARY via the middle mouse button.
For instance, right-click a link in Mozilla and copy it to the clipboard. Then select some text off the page. Now, paste the link via the copy command, and hit the middle mouse button to paste the text.
Yeah, I know it sounds confusing, but if novices never even know it's there and some X11 people really appreciate it then I think it's worth it.
Hmm. As far as I can tell the clipboard works just fine. Selecting text in an application will make it the PRIMARY selection and it can be pasted with the middle mouse button in to other X11 apps.
Using an X11 apps copy feature will place the selection into the CLIPBOARD buffer which will make it available to all applications (including Mac ones).
In GVIM you can do this by prefixing your commands with "+ (quote plus). As in 4"+yy or Vjjj"+y or "+P or "+p among others. With GNOME and KDE apps you simply use their Copy/Paste features.
If your X11 app does not support CLIPBOARD, then you can use xcutsel to transfer PRIMARY to CLIPBOARD which will allow you to paste into OS X apps. Likewise, you can select text in OS X, copy it, then transfer CLIPBOARD to PRIMARY and use middle-mouse paste.
Granted, I'd love to see middle-mouse paste implemented across the board in OS X. It's a feature that would not confuse novice users as all OS X apps already have normal Copy/Paste and novice users don't have middle mouse buttons anyway and it would really benefit those of us who appreciate having that extra quick select and paste a la X11.
It seems to me that Cocoa could easily support this as most Cocoa apps that do anything with text use the absolutely wonderful NSText system which could have this feature added quite readily.
I for one would be willing to live without the ability to do this from Carbon and Classic apps.
Come to think of it, I'd be willing to bet this could be done using an Objective-C category. Actually, I'm absolutely positive it could be done that way without even having Apple's source. Any takers?
You know, you should never verb a noun.
:-)
Did you not originally say BSD == UNIX and then repeat yourself in this message saying BSD == UNIX.
As far as I know, FreeBSD is certainly a BSD and by basing a kernel (if only a Mach personality) off of FreeBSD wouldn't that (by your standards) make Mac OS X a true UNIX?
Most normal people refer to even Linux as being a UNIX-like system (which it certainly is) or often remove the "-like" (as I did when referring to OS X) and simply refer to it as a UNIX system. That's why I said "God, that's being pedantic." OS X smells enough like UNIX to me.
And what's with the frothing Mac loonies comment? That and the relative tone of your message. Yes, I know some people refuse to refer to OS X as a UNIX, and even I wouldn't normally consider it as a true UNIX, but I do consider it to be UNIX-like and I do often drop the "-like" qualifier because it's bullshit. As far as I'm concerned, Linux also smells enouh like a UNIX to be colloquially referred to as one.
I expected a lot more from someone with a 4-digit Slashdot ID. Perhaps a discussion on the various points of what does/does not make a UNIX. Instead a got an uncalled-for flamewar.
Perhaps it's worthless in a discussion this old, but I second this.
A superior open source desktop is something I'd still really love to see, but what I want right now is a superior desktop of any kind (though hopefully UNIX). OS X fits that bill quite nicely and has been for me for a year now.
Anyone who is serious about working on UNIX/Linux should get a Mac-- especially the people working on desktop environments. There's a lot to learn from Mac OS X that really needs to make its way into Linux.
Fortunately, there's still hope. GNUstep is a relatively unknown project and I see a lot of potential there. One advantage of GNUstep is that design does not have to be done-- the API was designed by NeXT years ago. And from what I've seen, the GNOME and KDE people still haven't even come anywhere near the awesome design that NeXT did. Granted it's Objective-C, but if you don't know it, you should learn it-- it's a very nice language.
I'm actually working on a Cocoa port of wxWindows which I hope to eventually have working on GNUstep. Nearly instant native applications on Win32, X11 (drawing its own widgets), Motif, GTK, Mac (Classic and Carbon) and eventually Mac Cocoa and GNUstep.
God that's being pedantic!
In any case, at least it uses a lot of FreeBSD code for the UNIX kernel personality running on Mach. So considering that the UNIX personality IS a BSD derivative, then I suppose even by your standards it is UNIX, is it not?
You know, I think that's one of the most ignorant comments I've heard on Slashdot-- and that's saying something!
I certainly don't consider myself braindead and I love using my Mac. I think the user interface of OS X is leaps and bounds beyond that of Windows or any of the latest Linux desktops.
I also know of plenty of very intelligent people who use Macs simply because they are easier to use and it allows them to focus on the task at hand. Not everyone takes the slop they're fed and feels that it's "good enough" (which is basically what you are saying). Some of us actually don't mind paying a little bit extra-- if even there is any extra to be paid. $3,000 for a dual 2GHz 64-bit machine is pretty damn low IMHO.
Of course, my guess is your needs are different than mine. My needs dictate that I have a fast and easy to use UNIX system. The cheapest computer meeting those needs is a PowerMac.
Perhaps instead you are interested in playing the latest whiz-bang gaming title-- in that case you want a Pee Cee.
Troll? Mods, please have some respect for people with logged in accounts even if their comments aren't the most brilliant on Slashdot.
Of course with any computer you have to do updates and read the EULAs. The good thing about a Mac is that the EULAs are generally straightforward, and updating via software update is a breeze-- at least most of the time. :-/
I personally do feel it's worth the extra $500, but don't take my word for it. Go spend some time on a Mac and use it for a few hours each day for a few weeks. As you go you'll find out that it is in fact a very easy to use computer and that even for someone with a lot of computer experience not having to think too hard to use the computer is a good thing.
Disclaimer: I'm a UNIX nut (hah) and now a Mac OS X evangelist, so take it with a grain of salt.
Well, I'm glad you showed some restraint! Obviously I have no idea who you are and what you've done, so don't take what I said personally.
It was more for the benefit of the losers who lurk around here and think that if they just sent one more letter with their name on it as part of a giant mail bomb to a senator that they're making a difference.
In reality, what one is doing is further entrenching the view that our congress critters should bow down to the people who bitch the most (note: not necessarily the majority or even a good choice). Now, in the EFFs case I can say I mostly agree with their views, but I'll take the high road and write my own letter when I want to get the message through.
As you said, the only thing these form letters do is show the congress person that X number of people decided to send it. Think of how many groups write those letters. Don't you think it would be kind of boring to only get statistics like "X number of people wanted generally what was in this letter" and "Y number of people wanted what was written in this letter."
If an issue really bothers you, then write a personal note and mention that the EFFs letter (provide a URL) closely matches your view point. Specifically point out a few things you do or don't agree with.
I just wish more people would either be actively involved or not. I don't see this passive involvement as donig any good except making people feel like they did something.
Well, considering you sent the typical political action group letter, I'm hardly surprised by you getting the typical political response.
If the issue really concerns you, why not write your own letter and fax or preferrably mail it.
I'd love to see a law outlawing the sending of form letters on consituents behalf. It's a waste of taxpayer money for the staff to read them. Furthermore, it's a bastardation of the political process. Instead of receiving letters from people with genuine concerns, a barrage of form letters are received showing the views of people too stupid and lazy to send a personal note.
Nah, I think he said it right the first time.
Well, I think giving them a full year to allow their customers access to the code is more than enough. I mean, after a year it's pretty hard to claim any excuses whatsoever.
Furthermore, this isn't a problem unique to free software. Had they used a commercial library without licensing it properly they'd be in just as much hot water. Simply do not use GPL software in a program you don't intend to distribute in accordance with the GPL.
Is a lack of polished open source applications really a problem?
Back when I was a Linux and Slashdot n00b I always thought this. Mostly because of comments like yours suggesting that open source software is no good unless it has polished applications.
I have since changed my tune. Got a couple of commercial applications out there using open source software (i.e. BSD or LGPL libraries).
Let's face it, the typical open source development process is absolutely horrible for developing end-user desktop applications. However, the development process is perfect for system components and other libraries.
The problem we have now is that a lot of people are trying to develop applications for Linux using an open source development process simply because there are no other applications. What Linux really needs is a healthy commercial software market.The problem is, few developers want to waste resources on Linux when they can develop for Win32. Furthermore, most developers don't realize that writing cross-platform software can actually be easier than writing to Win32 or Linux alone.
Enter wxWindows. It's a mature C++ library that has ports for MSW, Mac (Classic and Carbon), X11 (drawing its own widgets), Motif, GTK, and others. It has quite a bit of similarity with MFC (only in a good way though) which makes it easy for MFC teams to get started.
Is it perfect? No. There's a few rough edges. Some people (particularly Microsoft and/or Java developers) are displeased with the way windows (not top-level) are owned by their parents. Some people are displeased that wxWindows doesn't use templates (it uses macros to accomplish the same thing). Some people are displeased that wxWindows doesn't use namespaces. Of course, everything is prefixed with "wx" anyway, so it's kind of a moot point.
In short, if your toolkit choice is based on having the latest whiz-bang C++ features, then forget about wxWindows. However, if your toolkit choice is based on usability, then you definitely want to go with wxWindows. There are bindings for (at least) Python, PERL, Java, and C# (actually, any .NET language) so it's your choice what language to use.
Furthermore, development continues. I am personally working on a port of wxWindows to Cocoa and hopefully GNUstep (once mainline GCC can do Objective-C++).
So, it seems the best course of action for a Linux advocate is to get the Windows and Mac developers using a toolkit like wxWindows. Perhaps some Slashdotters reading this are stuck in MFC hell? For the next project suggest wxWindows. Maybe even for this one, an MFC->wxWindows port generally only takes 3 months from what I've heard (I was smart and started with wxWindows :-). Once there are some good applications out there using a cross-platform toolkit, it becomes really easy for the move to Linux to take place. At that point it will happen slowly and naturally. A few developers will release Linux versions, then a few more. Then eventually all of the good apps are available for many platforms.
Is it a dream? A bit of one. But I think it's reasonable enough that we just might see it happen in the next 5-10 years. Remember, 5-10 is not really an eternity, even in the computing world. It's time we take a step back and realize the only decent thing that came out of the last 5-10 years was ubiquitous Internet access. Beyond that, there has been little innovation except for this and that whiz-bang feature that Microsoft adds with every release.
Umm... MoneyDance?
... is find something Better Than Ezra.
Okay, it's a groaner.
We do this in Virginia as well (at least here in Hampton). However, instead of pencils they provide Sharpie markers. As anyone familiar with OMR knows, while ballpoint pens do not work, almost all markers do. Sharpies actually tend to work better than pencils.
No stray graphite dust, no eraser dust, no possibility of erasing after the fact. I've gotta say that I have been thoroughly impressed by the OMR system in combination with the Sharpie markers. The circles and text are huge (for those with poorer vision). The layout is straightforward (big oval next to big text).
Frankly, if you are too stupid to use the OMR/Sharpie then you really don't deserve to be voting.
Right, 'cause we all know how MS Windows is the only competition.
The only thing you are right about is that mimicking MS Windows is not a good idea. Instead, look to Apple to see how this can be done properly.
Being a former BBS Sysop as well as a former OS/2 user (they kind of go hand in hand) I feel your pain.
Lately I've been using Mac OS X and I totally love it. There are, of course, some differences such as usable 2-button mouse vs. 1-button mouse. However, for the most part I feel the same spirit that IBM put into OS/2, Apple has put into Mac OS X. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that OS X derives directly from NeXT. Another factor is that OS/2 always was like a really powerful MacOS (classic).
It's really hard to put down in words, but both OS/2 and OS X just feel "right." Use either one for a few hours and you tend to feel like a fish out of water if you've used Windows all your life. Spend a week or two with either one and you start to realize that the polished user interfaces and attention to details really makes a difference.
Actually, this exact text gets posted to every mac story. Check some of the archives.
Actually, he was held without charge but with the public's knowledge. The parent post is right, this isn't even close to being disappeared, and it's inappropriate to distill the meaning lest we forget what being disappeared really means.
Reminds me of PETA a few months back likening pictures of animals being slaughtered to jews in concentration camps during Nazi germany (they showed the photos side-by-side with some comments about how it was just as bad). The worst part of it is that the local news (I'm around Norfolk) interviewed the president of PETA and she really didn't understand the problem, giving some off-the-cuff (i.e. poorly thought out) answer about how she thought it was a good comparison.
The fact that he worked in a computer related field does in fact have a lot to do with this. A lot of computer professionals are very left-leaning. Worse yet, many are young and naive. While most liberals are not young and naive, it seems the majority of young and naive people are liberals.
The really sad part is that both the liberal and conservative camps have their fair share of good ideas, but hard-liners are too opposed to different thinking and instead are just looking for a fight.
You see it on Slashdot every day. Irrational discussion does not bode well for the represntative democracy that we have. It takes compromise. Furthermore, it takes a well-informed (not well-brainwashed) public.
Making statements about how our country is rapidly heading towards totalitarianism does not bode well with the general public. Statements likening holding someone with public knowledge to holding someone without public knowledge do not fare well either. Nobody wants to hear this crap. It makes people feel helpless. It makes people feel like there's nothing they can do. It is that feeling that is really driving this country towards totalitarianism.
Reminds me of a great Beatles song: "You say you want a revolution, well you know we'd all love to see the plan." ... "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow!"
What year did richard Nixon become president?
Cool, thanks.. Hey, what was his dog's name?
Great, thanks ma!
:-)
Let me guess, same type of person who throws paint on someone's mink coat while wearing a leather belt and aligator skin boots?