It looks like microsoft is still a little behind the curve when it comes to revising an operating system to have a shell. IIRC Apple did the same thing a little over two years ago, but this time M$ isn't going to do the right thing and base their operating system on a *NIX foundation.
This seems fairly reminiscent of the e-book which flopped horribly, and with no keyboard in dual screen mode (unless you cary one around) I don't see how this will be useful for web designers, or for that matter, anyone who types code.
Dvorak brings up an interesting point, that interfaces are designed by coders and not artists, but oddly in the same article he says that linux shouldn't be going for a pretty look or features, merely to be different.
What is hands down most interesting about this is that for those of us who know his work, it seems to be a reversal of position. In the past Dvorak has ruthlessly bashed the macintosh operating system which stands for being different and had the original interface designed by artist.
There is some truth to the idea that an artist would make a better interface, but there are some guidelines which tend for better interfaces, and in general, a platform standard works well.
Apple provides the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines on their website for developers. This unification of interfaces on all application provices a unity over the system. In the MacOS a button in one application that is simmilar to another button should do basically the same thing. There are layout guidelines and notes for when to use different interface features, so a seasoned user will know what to expect when he or she does something.
The problem with impliemting something like this in the linux community is that there are many people working on any given thing, and too much varitation in X to do it well. Yes, it could be done but it isn't likely to happen.
Furthermore as far a putting features into the operating system, as someone above stated, that is what makes it easier to switch from Windows to Linux, and to that I say all the more power to us. Also Dvorak over looks the fact that any feature can be turned off, if the person dosen't feel like using it and wants more control over the system.
The point of Linux isn't to be difficult. It's to be open, free, and customizable. It is for those who don't want specific software shoved down their throats, and want to make their own software, edit someone else's or contribute to the greater good of their OS experiance.
As a mac user I have to wonder: Is direct X really better than OpenGL. I have heard that it is more difficult to program than OpenGL, but as I have never seen the code I can't substantiate it. From people who have programmed both; which is easier to program, which can output better graphics more easily?
I agree, the parallel of that "key" to quantum computing is terrifying. The main differance is that the quantum key could be used to spy on any government. Luckily for us PGP is still strong enough for most regular messages, and useful quantum comptuers (read anything that does more than add 1 + 1) are still quite a ways off.
Hominids by Robert Sawyer has an interesting take on what can happen should something go wrong with a quantum computer.
Hopefully this has ZeroConf or it could be added. Imagine having an 802.11 DVD player, seamlessly networked with your Panasonic Plasma TV.
It really seams like we are going to see a revolution in networked aplicances, finally, and it dosen't look like bluetooth is going to be the springboard.
So far, if I recall, Panasonic and at least 2 other companies have jumped onto the ZeroConf bandwagon. This includes some stero equipment along with TVs from Panasonic which support slide shows sent from the TV.
It seems that IBM is dancing around the issue here. They say that they will still support and sell OS/2, but they are not supporting large chunks of it.
It would be simmilar to microsoft saying that it will still sell windows, but if anyone has a problem with any of the components (IE, Control Pannels) they are out of luck.
It seems that IBM dosen't want to say that they aren't stopping, but they want to. They should bite the bullet and go one way, the other, or the GNU way.
As per a previous article 85% of the time that the astronauts spendin the space station is used for repiars. Given how time consuming most research is, would it really ever be possible for them to do reasearch with only 15% of the day for science (not to mention eating and sleeping).
From there a problem arises that if you make the space station bigger and add dedicated science personell you will have more station to take care of, and need more people to tend to it.
Overall it seems that a little more planning on everyone's part would have gone a long way.
They are talking $30 per leg.
I imagine that at those prices it will go the same way as inseat phones. One of the phone carriers is killing their $5 per minute service because there was on average 1.5 phone calls made per flight.
$30 seams reasonable for longer flights, and who honestly can't stay unplugged for a 3 hour flight. Granted more and more work nowadays needs to be done connected to the internet, but a fiar amout dosen't and it can interfere with productivity. Perhaps all businesses should have a no internet hour every day.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like microsoft is still a little behind the curve when it comes to revising an operating system to have a shell. IIRC Apple did the same thing a little over two years ago, but this time M$ isn't going to do the right thing and base their operating system on a *NIX foundation.
This seems fairly reminiscent of the e-book which flopped horribly, and with no keyboard in dual screen mode (unless you cary one around) I don't see how this will be useful for web designers, or for that matter, anyone who types code.
Much like the hill giant, it also has large blind spots. . . under its feet.
Having a server that can be slashdotted so quickly with something as likely to be slashdotted as this.
. . . Microsoft plans to aquire the DOJ.
This is the kind of thing you only watch hoping someone gets hurt. Whether it be the server or a sudden case or carpal tunnel.
Dvorak brings up an interesting point, that interfaces are designed by coders and not artists, but oddly in the same article he says that linux shouldn't be going for a pretty look or features, merely to be different.
What is hands down most interesting about this is that for those of us who know his work, it seems to be a reversal of position. In the past Dvorak has ruthlessly bashed the macintosh operating system which stands for being different and had the original interface designed by artist.
There is some truth to the idea that an artist would make a better interface, but there are some guidelines which tend for better interfaces, and in general, a platform standard works well.
Apple provides the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines on their website for developers. This unification of interfaces on all application provices a unity over the system. In the MacOS a button in one application that is simmilar to another button should do basically the same thing. There are layout guidelines and notes for when to use different interface features, so a seasoned user will know what to expect when he or she does something.
The problem with impliemting something like this in the linux community is that there are many people working on any given thing, and too much varitation in X to do it well. Yes, it could be done but it isn't likely to happen.
Furthermore as far a putting features into the operating system, as someone above stated, that is what makes it easier to switch from Windows to Linux, and to that I say all the more power to us. Also Dvorak over looks the fact that any feature can be turned off, if the person dosen't feel like using it and wants more control over the system.
The point of Linux isn't to be difficult. It's to be open, free, and customizable. It is for those who don't want specific software shoved down their throats, and want to make their own software, edit someone else's or contribute to the greater good of their OS experiance.
As a mac user I have to wonder: Is direct X really better than OpenGL. I have heard that it is more difficult to program than OpenGL, but as I have never seen the code I can't substantiate it. From people who have programmed both; which is easier to program, which can output better graphics more easily?
And the new code should be integrated into OS X sometime in late 2003!
Imagine the future to of the interfaces and desktops, You could have true 3D layering of windows. Imagine flippping though folder heirachies in 3D.
I think you could also do some amazing screen savers. Flying Windows that look like they are going to clonk you in the head.
How long till we get OS support for these babies?
Well, at least for the first big brother, you could watch the house live on the web. (-:
how about one to the tune of "Driedel Driedel Driedel"?
Maybe this will oneday replace the robotic bull at for wannabe cowboys, be be outside walmart for a 25 ride for your kid while you're shopping
I agree, the parallel of that "key" to quantum computing is terrifying. The main differance is that the quantum key could be used to spy on any government. Luckily for us PGP is still strong enough for most regular messages, and useful quantum comptuers (read anything that does more than add 1 + 1) are still quite a ways off.
Hominids by Robert Sawyer has an interesting take on what can happen should something go wrong with a quantum computer.
Hopefully this has ZeroConf or it could be added. Imagine having an 802.11 DVD player, seamlessly networked with your Panasonic Plasma TV.
It really seams like we are going to see a revolution in networked aplicances, finally, and it dosen't look like bluetooth is going to be the springboard.
So far, if I recall, Panasonic and at least 2 other companies have jumped onto the ZeroConf bandwagon. This includes some stero equipment along with TVs from Panasonic which support slide shows sent from the TV.
Are you excited?
Oddly overlooked on APPLE.slashdot.org, the newton.
Seems to me that with some of the software for OS X 10.2 it is a perfectly reasonable alternative to PalmOS
It seems that IBM is dancing around the issue here. They say that they will still support and sell OS/2, but they are not supporting large chunks of it.
It would be simmilar to microsoft saying that it will still sell windows, but if anyone has a problem with any of the components (IE, Control Pannels) they are out of luck.
It seems that IBM dosen't want to say that they aren't stopping, but they want to. They should bite the bullet and go one way, the other, or the GNU way.
As per a previous article 85% of the time that the astronauts spendin the space station is used for repiars. Given how time consuming most research is, would it really ever be possible for them to do reasearch with only 15% of the day for science (not to mention eating and sleeping).
From there a problem arises that if you make the space station bigger and add dedicated science personell you will have more station to take care of, and need more people to tend to it.
Overall it seems that a little more planning on everyone's part would have gone a long way.
They are talking $30 per leg. I imagine that at those prices it will go the same way as inseat phones. One of the phone carriers is killing their $5 per minute service because there was on average 1.5 phone calls made per flight.
$30 seams reasonable for longer flights, and who honestly can't stay unplugged for a 3 hour flight. Granted more and more work nowadays needs to be done connected to the internet, but a fiar amout dosen't and it can interfere with productivity. Perhaps all businesses should have a no internet hour every day.
if we are talking about average burners the numbers would be
421 burners * 0.286 CD burns/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 24 hours/day
that gives an even more impressive number of 173,384 CDs/day. Granted this dosen't account for verification and changing cds.