Tourists can't do anything, and if you've been paying attention, much of the time experts can't do anything either.
One doesn't need to understand how a vehicle works to ride a bus. One doesn't need to know how a plane works to fly in a plane. One doesn't need to know how a space shuttle works to go into space.
Yes but there's a difference between not making a profit and making money. Amazon is making money - they just put it back into building infrastructure.
Look at their books (if you're a shareholder) and you'll see that they can make profit anytime they want.
> last time I looked windows was
> x86 only, so was BeOS,
My Matthew says that although BeOS was also on Apple hardware until version 4 but with version 5 it was on x86 only. However BeOS has gone elsewhere since to several Internet Appliances under the name of BeIA (a different name - 90% of the same BeOS code). The moral of the story is BeOS is portable.
Now my Matthew has a gripe with you about your defense of X. It's quite obvious to him that you haven't looked into what X does and what it could do better. Do tell the community what you have programmed before... please!
X, by the nature of it's protocol, doesn't have many primitives that have to be worked around by abstraction layers. It can't map a polygon region to another.
The input device handling on X leaves much to be desired. In fact, the X server cannot instruct the client not to bother sending the X/Y mouse coordinates if it doesn't matter to the application. Some applications (like a flight simulator) require that all mouse movement be sent to the application. Others need only mouse clicks. But lets bog down the network anyway.
There's no nature of drag-n-drop (or even a decent cut and paste). Which I'm sure won't bother many people as who wants to drag from one application to another. But dragging within an application through toolkits would be useful. Imagine draging attributes to a email.
X's extensions are termainlly broken, too... honey.
My I'm starting to like this computer lark. There's so many loud people who haven't programmed the mess that is XLib and haven't seen how it could be better - yet they still marvel over X and it's fantastic remote display!
I could design a better remote display protocol than X's. There are many better protocols about already.
OK, that's all. X is awful. And please tell of your programming experience in X - I'm fascinated.
According to my son Matthew here, GTK has an abstraction layer of graphics primitives. Instead of these primtives writing to X they write to the Framebuffer, so assuming they don't step outside the GTK boundaries with native X calls there's no need for a recompile.
This computer lark certainly has a lot of big words!
Slashdot Mirror
One doesn't need to understand how a vehicle works to ride a bus. One doesn't need to know how a plane works to fly in a plane. One doesn't need to know how a space shuttle works to go into space.
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
But why didn't you?
Sounds like you need some shock therapy!
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
Look at their books (if you're a shareholder) and you'll see that they can make profit anytime they want.
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
> last time I looked windows was
> x86 only, so was BeOS,
My Matthew says that although BeOS was also on Apple hardware until version 4 but with version 5 it was on x86 only. However BeOS has gone elsewhere since to several Internet Appliances under the name of BeIA (a different name - 90% of the same BeOS code). The moral of the story is BeOS is portable.
Now my Matthew has a gripe with you about your defense of X. It's quite obvious to him that you haven't looked into what X does and what it could do better. Do tell the community what you have programmed before... please!
X, by the nature of it's protocol, doesn't have many primitives that have to be worked around by abstraction layers. It can't map a polygon region to another.
The input device handling on X leaves much to be desired. In fact, the X server cannot instruct the client not to bother sending the X/Y mouse coordinates if it doesn't matter to the application. Some applications (like a flight simulator) require that all mouse movement be sent to the application. Others need only mouse clicks. But lets bog down the network anyway.
There's no nature of drag-n-drop (or even a decent cut and paste). Which I'm sure won't bother many people as who wants to drag from one application to another. But dragging within an application through toolkits would be useful. Imagine draging attributes to a email.
X's extensions are termainlly broken, too... honey.
My I'm starting to like this computer lark. There's so many loud people who haven't programmed the mess that is XLib and haven't seen how it could be better - yet they still marvel over X and it's fantastic remote display!
I could design a better remote display protocol than X's. There are many better protocols about already.
OK, that's all. X is awful. And please tell of your programming experience in X - I'm fascinated.
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
This computer lark certainly has a lot of big words!
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
Reminds me of the time my uncle was arrested for shoplifting. He just chewed some 'bacco and got right out of there by killing five men he did.
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!