I'm not quite sure what the fuss is about copying Apple's "new" feature. Eight years ago when I used an X terminal tied to an AIX server, I used to do something even better.
From what I gather here, you get to see all of your windows in small-mode at the same time, right? AIX did better than that by letting you selectively make a window small, while leaving others normal size. This was great for monitoring output from "tail -f" on log files, or if you wanted to keep an eye on that C compile you had going. Make a couple of shell windows small and stick them in the corner. When they had content that looked interesting, you just made them normal size again.
Am I missing something here? Seems to me the Apple and Metacity approach is a crude version of the great AIX feature I used a long time ago.
I find your comment quite interesting in that it has made me think further about a related topic. I am a musician and I completely follow what you're saying about distracting sound coming from higher frequencies.
In my profession, I type on a keyboard all day long. I also hear many others around me doing the same. It never bothers me. However, ever time I hear someone typing at a keyboard on TV or in a movie, it's like nails on a chalkboard to me! I've never really figured out why, but I think I now have some insight. Perhaps I am subconciously filtering out those frequencies in my work environment.
Perhaps next time I hear a keyboard on TV, I'll lower the EQ on the upper frequencies and see if it makes any difference.
Perhaps you were originally modded down because of the hypocrite-factor of your post? You talk negatively about people who use obsceneties, yet both your name and your sig contain such language. I'm not judging your post, I'm just expressing an observation that may answer your question.
I agree that AIX performs quite well in situations that Linux does not. One of the projects I administer is an 88-node SP complex that runs a 12 terabyte Informix database. Each node has at least 2 processors and 3GB of RAM. As much as I love Linux, I just don't see it being able to reliably handle that type of installation for some time to come.
I was an SA for a medical software company for 8 years. It was quite hectic and stressful as most every SA know's the job can be. I then switched to the banking industry and went into a Capacity Planning position. It invloved planning for new installations as well as doing performance analysis on existing projects. After 8 months I found myself getting bored with the paper work and the meetings. I decided to move back into an SA position because of two reasons. One, I like the "hands on" - I'm too much of a nerd to just look at a million dollar server on paper, I want to play with it too! And two, the banking industry offers me *much* more interesting (high end) servers to play with than the medical software industry ever did. Perhaps the change in position was just a "grass is greener on the other side" issue. What I really needed may have been a change in the industry I was involved with.
I recall reading in 1995 (in more than one PC publication) that by the end of 1996 we'd be using PCI-only motherboards. I guess they were off by a little bit. I expect that PCI will phase out even slower than ISA is.
IMHO, PCI was the first bus standard that actually had serious thought put into it - unlike the EISA mess. Then again, maybe that's not altogether true. Microchannel had some definite benefits, but for whatever reason, it never went outside of IBM.
I completely agree. I didn't buy the concept when Microsoft pushed it, and I don't buy it now. IMHO, a filesystem and data presented using hyper-links are not the same to someone who understands the individual concepts. Perhaps to someone who is just learning how to make a computer a useful tool it's an easier leap.
I think this step in the Linux evolution process is a necessary one. It's all about flexibility and choice. If you don't care about a fancy looking file manager and/or you think it's too limiting in features, you can in fact go "back to basics" with your command line. I know I do.
Even though I most likely won't use a graphic file manager, I welcome the addition so that more people can feel comfortable with using Linux while still enjoying its stability.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not quite sure what the fuss is about copying Apple's "new" feature. Eight years ago when I used an X terminal tied to an AIX server, I used to do something even better.
From what I gather here, you get to see all of your windows in small-mode at the same time, right? AIX did better than that by letting you selectively make a window small, while leaving others normal size. This was great for monitoring output from "tail -f" on log files, or if you wanted to keep an eye on that C compile you had going. Make a couple of shell windows small and stick them in the corner. When they had content that looked interesting, you just made them normal size again.
Am I missing something here? Seems to me the Apple and Metacity approach is a crude version of the great AIX feature I used a long time ago.
I find your comment quite interesting in that it has made me think further about a related topic. I am a musician and I completely follow what you're saying about distracting sound coming from higher frequencies.
In my profession, I type on a keyboard all day long. I also hear many others around me doing the same. It never bothers me. However, ever time I hear someone typing at a keyboard on TV or in a movie, it's like nails on a chalkboard to me! I've never really figured out why, but I think I now have some insight. Perhaps I am subconciously filtering out those frequencies in my work environment.
Perhaps next time I hear a keyboard on TV, I'll lower the EQ on the upper frequencies and see if it makes any difference.
Perhaps you were originally modded down because of the hypocrite-factor of your post? You talk negatively about people who use obsceneties, yet both your name and your sig contain such language. I'm not judging your post, I'm just expressing an observation that may answer your question.
I agree that AIX performs quite well in situations that Linux does not. One of the projects I administer is an 88-node SP complex that runs a 12 terabyte Informix database. Each node has at least 2 processors and 3GB of RAM. As much as I love Linux, I just don't see it being able to reliably handle that type of installation for some time to come.
I was an SA for a medical software company for 8 years. It was quite hectic and stressful as most every SA know's the job can be. I then switched to the banking industry and went into a Capacity Planning position. It invloved planning for new installations as well as doing performance analysis on existing projects. After 8 months I found myself getting bored with the paper work and the meetings. I decided to move back into an SA position because of two reasons. One, I like the "hands on" - I'm too much of a nerd to just look at a million dollar server on paper, I want to play with it too! And two, the banking industry offers me *much* more interesting (high end) servers to play with than the medical software industry ever did. Perhaps the change in position was just a "grass is greener on the other side" issue. What I really needed may have been a change in the industry I was involved with.
Heh heh, I've never heard of pr0n and s3x referred to as "regular expressions". Are they supported in ksh?
I recall reading in 1995 (in more than one PC publication) that by the end of 1996 we'd be using PCI-only motherboards. I guess they were off by a little bit. I expect that PCI will phase out even slower than ISA is.
IMHO, PCI was the first bus standard that actually had serious thought put into it - unlike the EISA mess. Then again, maybe that's not altogether true. Microchannel had some definite benefits, but for whatever reason, it never went outside of IBM.
Uh oh, sounds like someone's mommy and daddy didn't buy him a power wheels when he was young. It still hurts, eh?
I completely agree. I didn't buy the concept when Microsoft pushed it, and I don't buy it now. IMHO, a filesystem and data presented using hyper-links are not the same to someone who understands the individual concepts. Perhaps to someone who is just learning how to make a computer a useful tool it's an easier leap.
I think this step in the Linux evolution process is a necessary one. It's all about flexibility and choice. If you don't care about a fancy looking file manager and/or you think it's too limiting in features, you can in fact go "back to basics" with your command line. I know I do.
Even though I most likely won't use a graphic file manager, I welcome the addition so that more people can feel comfortable with using Linux while still enjoying its stability.