>>because they don't port their programs to x86 but instead use an emulayer
Where do you get your facts?
Adobe has worked *considerably* with Intel to speed up the x86 processing for things like image filters.
In fact, the PowerPC code for image filters is compiled from a C++ codebase. The Intel code for image filters is compiled from HAND-TUNED X86 ASSEMBLY. Considerably more effort has gone into the Intel side of things, not just from Adobe but also Intel and Microsoft.
You have your "unfair advantage" assertion backwards;-)
And yes, I think it's possible for a G4 to be faster than a x86 at the same MHz. You ever ride in a Buick Grand National?? The thing barely gets over "5000 rpm", but with enough traction it easily would toast Mustangs of the day...
Or, I have an EASIER analogy for the PC Bigots...
Which is faster:
a 1.7 GHz Intel Pentium 4
.........or
a 1.6 GHz AMD XP processor?
If you say "Intel" is faster because of the MHz, you are either foolish, or dumb, and in either case if you back up your belief with a monetary bet you will SOON be parted with your money...
Disclaimer: I no longer own a Mac, but I come from a video editing background. I can tell you from personal experience running BeOS & Linux on PPC, that the biggest performance killer on a Mac was the pre-OS X operating system (and it wasn't so much a "speed" issue as it was latency on task-switching... VERY different issue).
does that mean that there is some chance of getting my atari 1400ST running apache?
A serious reply to your jest: yes (sort of)
You can always run minix on your ST, for one.. and for another you can run Linux/68000 (or more properly said... you can TRY to run it:-)
I've always had an interest in reviving my ST as a terminal, to control an mpg123 playlist running on the Linux box. I like the "instant on" and "no noise" thing about the ST, but I'm too lazy to configure everything;-)
It's probably too late in the life of this post, but has anyone considered microbial contamination from the Soviet probe landings on the moon?
In other words, it's MORE likely than not that the Soviets had poor decontamination standards for their interplanetary probes. The Russians may have inadvertently introduced "life" on Mars. Such microbial life could be linked to the increase in atmospheric density.. while they do consume C02, they could also be releasing some from the "soil".
This isn't as far fetched as the hostile conditions could make it sound. We keep finding unique life forms on this planet, some found in the darndest places... in boiling water pits, trapped in glaciers, or miles beneath the Earth's surface. The best conditions on Mars are colder and harsher than our Northern and Southern poles, but life does still exist at our poles.
Some theorize that life on Earth did not "happen" here.. that it was transplanted here my space debris (comets?). Conditions for life to begin might not exist everywhere in the universe, but once it DOES exist... it's pretty damn hardy (especially the low-complexity stuff)!
Re:More bias/social engineering from the hawks at
on
Battlefield Lasers
·
· Score: 2
Interesting. There is no failure or redesign in any of our (being citizens) projects?
Oh, wait!
We're *human*. That means we know we aren't perfect and we aren't going get it right the very first time trying to do a complicated thing!
Or did you *not* fall down while you were learning to ride a bycicle?
You might have had a point if you selected a better example, but you failed. "Civilian projects" do not spend upwards of 80 BILLION dollars in just the TEST phase. In science, at some point in testing, you will always arrive at a conclusion that the project is either not feasable, too expensive, or the technology is not ready. After almost 20 years of failures, I'd say it's all of the above.
The closest thing I could think of to your comment would be Boston's Big Dig. Sure, it's expensive as hell and has a lot of waste, but at least *civilian* projects like this are financially accountable, and nothing is filed as "secret". More importantly, and this is my counter-point.. there was plenty of evidence the tunnel would work. They just keep running these SDI tests to keep the pork flowing, and maybe sneak in more appropriations when the public is too busy worrying over terrorism.
In other words, the beef with SDI/star wars isn't over the trials, it's because they're PUSHING for Congress to ORDER the thing, when no one YET knows if it works. Oh yeah, and then there's the cost issue, and how much more likely a nuke would be suicide bombing than some fearless leader launching a missile at us... (I think our arsenal pretty much guarantees the latter will not happen)
Newsflash----
Not even Fox Network took the 'Moon Hoax' seriously. Sure it was titilating and it was a huge uproar. Got decent ratings too.
Nice to see Fox supporters shrug off gross acts of irresponsibility in the name of politics and profit. "We report - you decide" is the Fox motto, but it should be "We decide -- you agree (and your conscience can be clear because you heard it on TV)".
But if you're blaming NASA's problems on FOX, you aren't looking in the right place.
Most of its problems are within congress and management
In my opinion, the only problem NASA has is *intereference* and fiscal sabotage. And yes, I can lay that squarely at the feet of conservatives, who can think of nothing more than profits from privatized space exploitation. Hell, Nasa's detractors in Congress are the same bastards who feel nothing wrong about privatizing our POLICE forces, if they could get away with it.
The only thing "wrong" with NASA management is they will spend whatever it takes to protect their people, accidents notwithstanding. You won't for example see a mining corporation install multiple fail-safe devices... "it's just part of the job".
More bias/social engineering from the hawks at FOX
on
Battlefield Lasers
·
· Score: 4, Troll
This wasn't news, it was a *commercial*.
It's pretty simple:
1) a chunk of your tax dollars goes to pork-barrel arms projects (that don't work).
2) Said arms dealer profits.
3) Arms dealer "lobbies" for more congressional pork.
In the "old days" of the early 90's, #3 meant simply bribing the congressmen via his campaign "war chest". While that made effective lobbying, today we have Rupert Murdoch's lobbying group, "Fox" television. It's sad to have seen the name of a once-great US media company bought out by a "naturalized" foreigner whose intentions are simply to influence American politics.
In other words, this is a LOBBYING EFFORT to raise taxes for yet another military boondoggle. It's just pretend news.
Congress is already leery of "star wars" (the SDI kind), seeing how there is so much pressure to deploy the damn thing, when star wars misses 3 out of 6 targets in *lab* conditions.
Now they want the same unproven technology on the ground. Fox runs nothing but editorials against "government pork" and "big government" EXCEPT when it serves the war hawks or their stock portfolio.
Remember, these are the same maggots who ran "investigative reporting" how the USA supposedly never landed on the moon. Note this story ran JUST BEFORE renewed calls in Congress to both cut NASA funding (to make them less effective), AND to privatize NASA altogether.
George Orwell was wrong. In the future we will be controlled by mindless, hypnosis-inducing corporate-sponsored "information", news, etc.
Load up on the old games, and have a ball. Older games like Warcraft 2, Starcraft, Carmageddon, Civ2, DooM... you just can't beat them for playability.
I've been sorely disappointed with the latest games, things like Max Payne etc.
And it's not just because my computer is old (and it is)... I've played them on the latest Athlon XP1600 + GeForce 3.
Hell, I'd love nothing more than a portable MAME emulator with both TV & SVGA output, and USB + Atari joystick ports...
[my quote] -- However the current COST of a Qt license is hurting Linux. By that I mean, they are hurting the small software developer.
Blah Blah Blah. We've heard this one before. I'f you're going to be producing commercial software for windows with Qt you have to pay, what, about $1200 to Trolltech?
[your quote] Nice to trivialize the expense of $1200... are you still employed by a dot-com? My point still went over your head (or you stepped deftly aside...).
The point isn't the the cost of the license, per se... it could be a $600 license and there would still be a problem.
What is my point then? There are two:
No one knows how an application will fare in the marketplace. $1200 is a LOT for a crazy guy with an application idea.
The price is a LINUX BARRIER to entry.
That's right, the Windows license for Qt actually hurts Linux desktop development. These developers will *continue* to target Windows, because there's no user base in Linux who will pay for software.
This is a chicken-and-egg problem. People don't use Windows because it's Microsoft... many use it because it is a program loader for their apps.
Tell me something, if you plan on making less than that amount of money on your product, perhaps you should consider GPLing it anyways...?
Irrelivent. No one can predict the future. If a well-meaning shareware developer were to consider a port to Windows, guess how quickly that idea will be sacked when the guy's wife realizes it's "$1200" to write Qt software that runs on Linux.
Oh WAIT... it's $1200 to write Qt software on Windows. Hey, forget about cross-platform... just write the freakin software in Visual Basic. Most people will "leave it" when given a $1200 "take it or leave it" ultimatum.
PS - Who ever moderated this guy as "Flamebait"... you need to read the moderation guidelines. He wasn't flaming as far as I can tell... just disagreeing. Oh, wait.. there's no way to send notice to these moderators...
I don't think a GPL'd port of Qt for Windows would be... bad to TrollTech. People who used this port of Qt would have produce Free Software anyways. Since most companies could not accept this anways, they'd buy the commercial license anyways.
I don't see many Free Software developers rushing out to buy commercial Qt licenses so they can produce Free Software for Windows. So, basically, TrollTech would not be harmed financially, and would probably gain more users (which could mean more Commercial licenses, if some of the Free Software developers wished to make non-Free Software).
Amen!
I'd have to hope Troll Tech is confident enough to GPL the native Windows version.
Troll Tech keeps relaxing their licensing according to the successes of GTK and GNOME. Fine, competition is great. I have no doubt the Qt license will change AGAIN in the future...
However the current COST of a Qt license is hurting Linux. By that I mean, they are hurting the small software developer. Troll Tech should have pity on low volume commercial software companies -- including shareware (what I call "mom and pop dot com") -- because the current licensing is way too expensive for the small guy. We want to encourage innovative, small developers... not just cheer and jeer for Oracle, and the latest game port. Qt licensing is like a head tax.. fair for some, but too steep for many.
I'll give you a great example of Qt-like licensing:
I lived in the state of New Hampshire. There in the land of "small government" the distribution of alcohol is a state-run monopoly. In order to have your alcoholic beverage "approved" to go on the wholesalers list, you pay a set tax regardless of the quantities sold. So, whatever Budweiser pays is also paid by Nutfield brewing company, or any outside brewer who wants access to the NH market.
The result is, while the Northeast is a boom region for microbrews, New Hampshire lags the pack with just one midsized microbrew. This is artificial and due to the state tax, because NH consumes more microbrew per capita than anywhere in the northeast. The tax brings in income, but it's miscarried an entire industry.
Anyone who thinks Linux on the desktop will "get there" without "shareware" is deliding themselves. There are just too many varied interests for the free software teams to fill.
Now, you and I probabnly don't care about shareware... but these tiny niche apps will keep THOSE people on Windows forever. These apps COULD be ported to Linux if the right toolkit were available.
Now, GTK gets around this totally by being LGPL. I don't think Troll Tech want to go THERE. So, they should address the vacuum by producing a low-volume commercial license. It will help the platform considerably!
ACtually, Gtk2 *is* designed for Win32
on
GTK-- vs. QT
·
· Score: 2
Well, sure there is a difference between "designed for" and "ported to" (tho for some "designed for" means "press release for").
GTK 1.x was always portable -- designed so -- because the GDK was an abstraction layer that allowed porting to nearly anything someone had a desire to port onto (win32, framebuffer, whatever). I've used GTK under Python, and while it's slower than native Windows UI, it's more than acceptable for GIMP.
This fellow really needs to prototype some stuff using *each* of the closest candidates. If his schedule does not include time for prototypes, the software will be ready for a code rewrite MUCH sooner than they expect. I do Software QA, and I've seen the effects of rushing a project without proper homework up front. You *always* throw away some code, like it or not...
>However, Gtk2's win32 port will likely remain a very unsupported port.
Opinion presented as fact. There are *many* projects using GTK on Windows... just like there are many Qt projects on Windows. They're just ot very prominent (aside from GIMP).
.. And from what I read on the mailing lists, GTK 2.0 will be "officially supported on Windows (whatever that means), and the rendering rewrite has eliminated that "slow redraw" problem of GTK 1.x.
...Probably because I pissed off one of the stormtroopers I mean moderators. It's the SECOND posting I've had moderated down since I changed my.sig here...
Oh well. The bigger Slashdot gets, the more it goes down the tubes. I've been here since almost the very beginning too...
Re:open-source their web page so it works in Moz
on
Bleem's Gravestone Online
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
People who design `IE-only` webpages should be put out of business!
Fox is pretty much the sleaze of the earth... kind of like what would become of an AOL/MSNBC/National Enquirer/Hustler mega-merger.
This is the network that runs "NASA never got us on the moon" stories posing as news, just when special interest groups are lobbying Congress to privatize NASA and "open" space to responsible development (not).
Fox is as important to the GOP (Republicans) as "the games" were to the Romans.
Any idea what a Windows developer seat (including something like visual studio) costs?
Yes, I do... somewhere in the range of $400-$700 per seat for MS Dev Studio. That's quite high considering the "economics of scale". Microsoft can get away with this pricing, since any commercial shrink-wrapped software publisher knows they are "asking for trouble" if they use non-Microsoft tools to develop on.
That does not mean Troll Tech can fall back on "economics of scale"... this "crossplatform feature" is laughable in the real world. Nobody can name 5 major commercial applications on Windows, that are using Qt. I can at least note that MusicMatch Jukebox and a handful of other Windows applications were ported to Windows, using winelib.
The point is, to make a SERIOUS challenge to the hearts and minds of small developers, something HAS TO CHANGE.
That something has to be one of:
GTK+ usability and performance improvements
"Qt for Shareware Edition", or other price/licensing adjustments not seen yet.
Linux really doesn't have something as "accessible" as Visual Basic, or MS Visual C++. KDE Developer Studio looks appealing, but, again, it has the same runtime licensing problems as Qt.
I'm pleased that TT has released a "GPL Edition" binary for Windows -- allowing GPL ports to and from Win32.
However, this still does not address the shareware problem. Shareware has pioneered lots of great ideas, many of which were stolen by Microsoft and then folded into Windows. On Linux, Shareware is derided (unless it is Quake) and I have no doubts that any popular Linux shareware would be "cloned" in GPL form. Perhaps. But as long as Troll Tech has a "one size fits all" commercial licensing plan, only the 600 pound gorillas like Microsoft and Borland can afford to use it.
Too bad.. because shareware authors are typically MORE anti-Microsoft than most developers!
Read. Your analogy just plain sucks, although it may serve your purposes enough. A better example would be a Holocost victim trying to recover stolen property from a German bank, and the bank says "that was SIXTY years ago old man!"
Look up the RECENT troubles in the Black Hills of Dakota. This is *still* going on. The courts have ruled that the Black Hills belong to the native peoples there, but have not been returned.
Leonard Peltier is in fact still in jail in 2001 for his American Indian Movement political activities, despite evidence and admissions that the FBI violated process and the law with his and other cases (such as planting evidence and lying to the court, which was proven in the trials of other people charged).
... just ask any Native American how good the word of our government is.
Expect COMPLETE PARITY between the laws governing "terrorism" and the war on "drugs".
The irony is, the people pushing for these laws are the same people who screamed bloody murder about Ruby Ridge, or Waco Texas. Now it's their turn.
And since ANONYMOUS TIPS can be used to gain a search warrent, I sincerely doubt the claim "none of this is admissible". Just launder you ill-gained evidence through an anonymous tip, get a warrant, and use that evidence instead. There are enough loopholes to fit a fleet of 18-wheelers through.
>I'm sorry, I just find that really hypocritical and I hope it at least makes sense to some people
It's equally easy to spin your arguement as "TrollTech wants the commercial software market all to themselves".
Sorry, what Troll Tech is doing is MANIPULATION. I wouldn't be surprised if The Kompany makes some money, and TT makes a *direct* investment in them...
Yes, you need to modify a few packages to get them to compile under Cygwin. The link I provided (to.jp) seems to have great documentation on the subject... take a look, it's probably what you're looking for.
KDE 1.x has ready-made packages for Cygwin, and installs painlessly (I've run it for the hey-look-at-this factor). I wish someone could do the same with Gnome 1.4.
>>I can't create a KDE application and sell it without buying a QT license for over $2000
>So you can't get rich on the efforts of others without giving them something back? Tough.
Your killer app is just going to have to be open source isn't it?
Yeah, it's all about giving NOTHING back... that's what he said right? NO. This is a favorite KDE strawman tactic (or maybe you miss the point)... to deflect all license criticism as "you must be a freeloader".
The above poster did not say he did not want or believe that *NOTHING* should be given back. He SAID it costs $2000 to develop a non-free application for KDE.
How many non-free applications do you own (or "use") on different platforms? I use quite a few that simply DON'T EXIST in the GPL world and you will only find them on Windows. Open source apps are not good at all at filling in small "niche" applications, and giving said applications a polished user interface.
Don't believe me? Go into ANY Linux #irc channel, and ask what application is closest to the batch image processing of "Paint Shop Pro". The answer you will hear is "write a perl script to loop around Image Magick". In #linux, often the answer to "What program does this" is usually "write a script". But that's OK, all this innovative shareware will probably be cloned as free software someday. Um, maybe. In the meantime, that lack of flexibility of Linux means it's yet another place I can't sneak Linux into the corporate world. Good job, you.
The point is not can or can not Jasc software afford the $2000 barrier to commercial software. Instead, my point is there are PLENTY of small software shops that would consider porting to Linux, but can't afford this high cost.
What you might call "scummy shareware", *I* would call "mom and pop software". It's where most great ideas get their start. In Windows, Shareware tends to be TOO commonplace... but that's Microsoft's fault (I mean, shipping Windows without a ZIP-capable program?? Please!!). Shareware would be less of a disease on Linux than it has with Windows.
I guess KDE is SO FREE SOFTWARE PURE that they don't mind polarizing the software world into the big Borlands and the Microsofts on one side, and the free software purists on the other. No small wanna-be software developers at all in the middle.
Guess where "innovation" comes from? The small software company. I wish I could say Microsoft's licensing took away more freedom than Troll Tech's, but it's just not true. We'll always be stuck copying other people's ideas, or taking the big-software crap that is given to us.
And I really get a kick out of people saying BECAUSE Troll Tech disallows development by small software companies, they must be MORE FREE than GNOME. Please. These are the same people who said "fuck the GPL" when it was convenient to violate the license.
Yes, you could build and run Evolution under Windows, but currently ONLY under Cygwin + an X11 server (this is still local on the Windows box). A Cygwin setup can be accomplished by a newbie. See links below for running GNOME under Cygwin on a Windows box.
Much of GNOME will not build natively, although the libraries themselves are designed to be portable, and GTK is working just fine as Win32 (see GIMP).
There are two kinds of Windows ports... X11 display based, and true "native" Win32. The former is easy to do; the latter is not yet possible (tho you can help!). It's likely that a "native GNOME for Windows" will be much easier, once GTK 2.0 is released.
A lot of people want to port GNOME and GTK apps over to Windows. To conquer the enemy they say, you have to enter their territory, then sway them to your culture (OS).;-)
Question is, would federal security have done any better at stopping those knives? OK, a government security guard isn't concerned about profit and cutting costs. On the other hand (based on what goes on with other branches of the government) a government security guard isn't exactly worried about losing his/her job either.
True, but the police generally do a good job, and this is a police job we are talking about. This is not a "big unknown".
There are those that want to privatize the police forces also (which frightens the hell out of me!).
In this case, I think it is obvious the high costs are worth it, but you will agree that the costs will be higher?
Sure costs are generally higher if the government runs things. That needs to be factored into any decision for where jobs belong. OTOH, the government is *generally* preferred when it involves the PUBLIC TRUST (police, fire, food inspection, etc).
Government agencies tend to waste money, but so do private defense contractors. Accountability and protection for "whistle blowers" are key to preventing abuses in any situation.
Personally, airline flights are TOO CHEAP and too frequent. These planes are not filled to capacity yet they fly anyhow. That's a lot of pollutants going into OUR air (no matter where you live). The airlines are broke and only survive because their investors have the clout to shakedown the US taxpayers for $15 Billion (with nary a cent for the 80,000+ laid off airline employees).
I agree that privatization does not equal progress, in the same sense that giving people what they want is not always the best thing. SUVs are probably a good example of that.
How about space-bound SUV's? Besides, I don't see how space can be fairly privatized. Who owns it, and who decides how the spoils are divided?
Seriously, I envision such a thing as a huge welfare grant to corporations. Who is the US government to start selling space rights? Is this a task for the UN? Whose national coffers will the taxes on profits go into (or more likely, there won't be any taxes).
In a planet that is rapidly warming, who is going to regulate how many space flights per year our atmosphere can handle? More likely, investors will argue the market will take care of pollution on its own.
We already can't manage our resources here. Most animals do not poo in their drinking water... we dump plenty of things in our rivers (or we have just recently stopped, depending where you live).
Space would be a dumping ground.
Expect space to be "auctioned off", just like the FCC auctioned off the airwaves, and kept the profits (this exceeded the FCC's mandate).
Sorry if this sounds gloom and doom, but I don't see anything in our past or present to indicate we are resposible enough for what's out there. We still fight over oil, fer christs sake.
Get your facts right. The knifes used in the attack was placed on the airline and never passed through airline security.
Oh PLEASE. Are you really claiming to KNOW how they got the knives on board? If you're just speculating, say so. If not, call the FBI with your "new evidence".
Even since September 11, there have been several cases of weapons getting by private security.
Another example: transAtlantic boats. Columbus had to go begging to the government of Spain to get funding to send the first couple of boats over here,and they were putting them over here at the rate of about one every 2-3 years... But the mid-16th century, colonization was in private hands (in England and France, at least), and I'm sure you'll agree that transatlantic commerce got "a little better" as a result.
Interesting that you would use this example, since the very outcome of what you suggest was one of the largest documented instances of genocide. Colonization sounds so much better in the 4th grade history books, than say mass murder, rape, theft, broken treaties and enslavement.
Privitazation does not equal progress. We already see what happens when we have privatized airline security. Privatization is certainly useful for some things, like sanitation and road building. Privatizing NASA is pure corporate welfare giveaways.
A primary cause of NASA's huge expenses is the SAFETY measures they make. Nothing's foolproof, but NASA is responible for human life. Privatize them, and the resulting corporation will still put on a show they care about life... but it will be done through a filter called "risk assessment". Translated, that means "where is the sweet spot between protecting our personel assets vs. maximizing profit".
The above post was modded DOWN at 5PM EST US time.
There doesn't seem to be anything "trollish" about the comment. In fact it's even perfectly "on-topic", since Hemos asserted the American Southwest [voluntarily] "joined" the USA, and the poster merely pointed out the truth. What's wrong with that??
For moderation to work, it has to PUNISH outragously bad moderation. This moderator should be on "probation" or suspended since they can't handle the responsability.
It's not the posters fault that Hemos learned his history from Walt Disney movies (and for that matter, CT learned to spell from badly translated movie subtitles).
Slashdot Mirror
>>because they don't port their programs to x86 but instead use an emulayer
;-)
Where do you get your facts?
Adobe has worked *considerably* with Intel to speed up the x86 processing for things like image filters.
In fact, the PowerPC code for image filters is compiled from a C++ codebase. The Intel code for image filters is compiled from HAND-TUNED X86 ASSEMBLY. Considerably more effort has gone into the Intel side of things, not just from Adobe but also Intel and Microsoft.
You have your "unfair advantage" assertion backwards
And yes, I think it's possible for a G4 to be faster than a x86 at the same MHz. You ever ride in a Buick Grand National?? The thing barely gets over "5000 rpm", but with enough traction it easily would toast Mustangs of the day...
Or, I have an EASIER analogy for the PC Bigots...
Which is faster:
a 1.7 GHz Intel Pentium 4
.........or
a 1.6 GHz AMD XP processor?
If you say "Intel" is faster because of the MHz, you are either foolish, or dumb, and in either case if you back up your belief with a monetary bet you will SOON be parted with your money...
Disclaimer: I no longer own a Mac, but I come from a video editing background. I can tell you from personal experience running BeOS & Linux on PPC, that the biggest performance killer on a Mac was the pre-OS X operating system (and it wasn't so much a "speed" issue as it was latency on task-switching... VERY different issue).
A serious reply to your jest: yes (sort of)
You can always run minix on your ST, for one.. and for another you can run Linux/68000 (or more properly said... you can TRY to run it :-)
I've always had an interest in reviving my ST as a terminal, to control an mpg123 playlist running on the Linux box. I like the "instant on" and "no noise" thing about the ST, but I'm too lazy to configure everything ;-)
It's probably too late in the life of this post, but has anyone considered microbial contamination from the Soviet probe landings on the moon?
In other words, it's MORE likely than not that the Soviets had poor decontamination standards for their interplanetary probes. The Russians may have inadvertently introduced "life" on Mars. Such microbial life could be linked to the increase in atmospheric density.. while they do consume C02, they could also be releasing some from the "soil".
This isn't as far fetched as the hostile conditions could make it sound. We keep finding unique life forms on this planet, some found in the darndest places... in boiling water pits, trapped in glaciers, or miles beneath the Earth's surface. The best conditions on Mars are colder and harsher than our Northern and Southern poles, but life does still exist at our poles.
Some theorize that life on Earth did not "happen" here.. that it was transplanted here my space debris (comets?). Conditions for life to begin might not exist everywhere in the universe, but once it DOES exist... it's pretty damn hardy (especially the low-complexity stuff)!
Interesting. There is no failure or redesign in any of our (being citizens) projects?
Oh, wait!
We're *human*. That means we know we aren't perfect and we aren't going get it right the very first time trying to do a complicated thing!
Or did you *not* fall down while you were learning to ride a bycicle?
You might have had a point if you selected a better example, but you failed. "Civilian projects" do not spend upwards of 80 BILLION dollars in just the TEST phase. In science, at some point in testing, you will always arrive at a conclusion that the project is either not feasable, too expensive, or the technology is not ready. After almost 20 years of failures, I'd say it's all of the above.
The closest thing I could think of to your comment would be Boston's Big Dig. Sure, it's expensive as hell and has a lot of waste, but at least *civilian* projects like this are financially accountable, and nothing is filed as "secret". More importantly, and this is my counter-point.. there was plenty of evidence the tunnel would work. They just keep running these SDI tests to keep the pork flowing, and maybe sneak in more appropriations when the public is too busy worrying over terrorism.
In other words, the beef with SDI/star wars isn't over the trials, it's because they're PUSHING for Congress to ORDER the thing, when no one YET knows if it works. Oh yeah, and then there's the cost issue, and how much more likely a nuke would be suicide bombing than some fearless leader launching a missile at us... (I think our arsenal pretty much guarantees the latter will not happen)
Newsflash----
Not even Fox Network took the 'Moon Hoax' seriously. Sure it was titilating and it was a huge uproar. Got decent ratings too.
Nice to see Fox supporters shrug off gross acts of irresponsibility in the name of politics and profit. "We report - you decide" is the Fox motto, but it should be "We decide -- you agree (and your conscience can be clear because you heard it on TV)".
But if you're blaming NASA's problems on FOX, you aren't looking in the right place.
Most of its problems are within congress and management
In my opinion, the only problem NASA has is *intereference* and fiscal sabotage. And yes, I can lay that squarely at the feet of conservatives, who can think of nothing more than profits from privatized space exploitation. Hell, Nasa's detractors in Congress are the same bastards who feel nothing wrong about privatizing our POLICE forces, if they could get away with it.
The only thing "wrong" with NASA management is they will spend whatever it takes to protect their people, accidents notwithstanding. You won't for example see a mining corporation install multiple fail-safe devices... "it's just part of the job".
This wasn't news, it was a *commercial*.
It's pretty simple:
1) a chunk of your tax dollars goes to pork-barrel arms projects (that don't work).
2) Said arms dealer profits.
3) Arms dealer "lobbies" for more congressional pork.
In the "old days" of the early 90's, #3 meant simply bribing the congressmen via his campaign "war chest". While that made effective lobbying, today we have Rupert Murdoch's lobbying group, "Fox" television. It's sad to have seen the name of a once-great US media company bought out by a "naturalized" foreigner whose intentions are simply to influence American politics.
In other words, this is a LOBBYING EFFORT to raise taxes for yet another military boondoggle. It's just pretend news.
Congress is already leery of "star wars" (the SDI kind), seeing how there is so much pressure to deploy the damn thing, when star wars misses 3 out of 6 targets in *lab* conditions.
Now they want the same unproven technology on the ground. Fox runs nothing but editorials against "government pork" and "big government" EXCEPT when it serves the war hawks or their stock portfolio.
Remember, these are the same maggots who ran "investigative reporting" how the USA supposedly never landed on the moon. Note this story ran JUST BEFORE renewed calls in Congress to both cut NASA funding (to make them less effective), AND to privatize NASA altogether.
George Orwell was wrong. In the future we will be controlled by mindless, hypnosis-inducing corporate-sponsored "information", news, etc.
Load up on the old games, and have a ball. Older games like Warcraft 2, Starcraft, Carmageddon, Civ2, DooM... you just can't beat them for playability.
I've been sorely disappointed with the latest games, things like Max Payne etc.
And it's not just because my computer is old (and it is)... I've played them on the latest Athlon XP1600 + GeForce 3.
Hell, I'd love nothing more than a portable MAME emulator with both TV & SVGA output, and USB + Atari joystick ports...
[my quote] -- However the current COST of a Qt license is hurting Linux. By that I mean, they are hurting the small software developer.
Blah Blah Blah. We've heard this one before. I'f you're going to be producing commercial software for windows with Qt you have to pay, what, about $1200 to Trolltech?
[your quote] Nice to trivialize the expense of $1200... are you still employed by a dot-com? My point still went over your head (or you stepped deftly aside...).
The point isn't the the cost of the license, per se... it could be a $600 license and there would still be a problem.
What is my point then? There are two:
That's right, the Windows license for Qt actually hurts Linux desktop development. These developers will *continue* to target Windows, because there's no user base in Linux who will pay for software.
This is a chicken-and-egg problem. People don't use Windows because it's Microsoft... many use it because it is a program loader for their apps.
Tell me something, if you plan on making less than that amount of money on your product, perhaps you should consider GPLing it anyways...?
Irrelivent. No one can predict the future. If a well-meaning shareware developer were to consider a port to Windows, guess how quickly that idea will be sacked when the guy's wife realizes it's "$1200" to write Qt software that runs on Linux.
Oh WAIT... it's $1200 to write Qt software on Windows. Hey, forget about cross-platform... just write the freakin software in Visual Basic. Most people will "leave it" when given a $1200 "take it or leave it" ultimatum.
PS - Who ever moderated this guy as "Flamebait"... you need to read the moderation guidelines. He wasn't flaming as far as I can tell... just disagreeing. Oh, wait.. there's no way to send notice to these moderators...
I don't think a GPL'd port of Qt for Windows would be... bad to TrollTech. People who used this port of Qt would have produce Free Software anyways. Since most companies could not accept this anways, they'd buy the commercial license anyways.
I don't see many Free Software developers rushing out to buy commercial Qt licenses so they can produce Free Software for Windows. So, basically, TrollTech would not be harmed financially, and would probably gain more users (which could mean more Commercial licenses, if some of the Free Software developers wished to make non-Free Software).
Amen!
I'd have to hope Troll Tech is confident enough to GPL the native Windows version.
Troll Tech keeps relaxing their licensing according to the successes of GTK and GNOME. Fine, competition is great. I have no doubt the Qt license will change AGAIN in the future...
However the current COST of a Qt license is hurting Linux. By that I mean, they are hurting the small software developer. Troll Tech should have pity on low volume commercial software companies -- including shareware (what I call "mom and pop dot com") -- because the current licensing is way too expensive for the small guy. We want to encourage innovative, small developers... not just cheer and jeer for Oracle, and the latest game port. Qt licensing is like a head tax.. fair for some, but too steep for many.
I'll give you a great example of Qt-like licensing:
I lived in the state of New Hampshire. There in the land of "small government" the distribution of alcohol is a state-run monopoly. In order to have your alcoholic beverage "approved" to go on the wholesalers list, you pay a set tax regardless of the quantities sold. So, whatever Budweiser pays is also paid by Nutfield brewing company, or any outside brewer who wants access to the NH market.
The result is, while the Northeast is a boom region for microbrews, New Hampshire lags the pack with just one midsized microbrew. This is artificial and due to the state tax, because NH consumes more microbrew per capita than anywhere in the northeast. The tax brings in income, but it's miscarried an entire industry.
Anyone who thinks Linux on the desktop will "get there" without "shareware" is deliding themselves. There are just too many varied interests for the free software teams to fill.
Now, you and I probabnly don't care about shareware... but these tiny niche apps will keep THOSE people on Windows forever. These apps COULD be ported to Linux if the right toolkit were available.
Now, GTK gets around this totally by being LGPL. I don't think Troll Tech want to go THERE. So, they should address the vacuum by producing a low-volume commercial license. It will help the platform considerably!
Well, sure there is a difference between "designed for" and "ported to" (tho for some "designed for" means "press release for").
GTK 1.x was always portable -- designed so -- because the GDK was an abstraction layer that allowed porting to nearly anything someone had a desire to port onto (win32, framebuffer, whatever). I've used GTK under Python, and while it's slower than native Windows UI, it's more than acceptable for GIMP.
This fellow really needs to prototype some stuff using *each* of the closest candidates. If his schedule does not include time for prototypes, the software will be ready for a code rewrite MUCH sooner than they expect. I do Software QA, and I've seen the effects of rushing a project without proper homework up front. You *always* throw away some code, like it or not...
>However, Gtk2's win32 port will likely remain a very unsupported port.
Opinion presented as fact. There are *many* projects using GTK on Windows... just like there are many Qt projects on Windows. They're just ot very prominent (aside from GIMP).
.. And from what I read on the mailing lists, GTK 2.0 will be "officially supported on Windows (whatever that means), and the rendering rewrite has eliminated that "slow redraw" problem of GTK 1.x.
Cheers..
>BTW: Why was the article marked as flamebait??
.sig here...
...Probably because I pissed off one of the stormtroopers I mean moderators. It's the SECOND posting I've had moderated down since I changed my
Oh well. The bigger Slashdot gets, the more it goes down the tubes. I've been here since almost the very beginning too...
People who design `IE-only` webpages should be put out of business!
Here's where Fox got the story from, for those that would rather avoid any contact with FOX and go straight to the source.
http://www.azstarnet.com/star/mon/11112tinylights2 ftse2fmst2f.html
Fox is pretty much the sleaze of the earth... kind of like what would become of an AOL/MSNBC/National Enquirer/Hustler mega-merger.
This is the network that runs "NASA never got us on the moon" stories posing as news, just when special interest groups are lobbying Congress to privatize NASA and "open" space to responsible development (not).
Fox is as important to the GOP (Republicans) as "the games" were to the Romans.
Any idea what a Windows developer seat (including something like visual studio) costs?
Yes, I do... somewhere in the range of $400-$700 per seat for MS Dev Studio. That's quite high considering the "economics of scale". Microsoft can get away with this pricing, since any commercial shrink-wrapped software publisher knows they are "asking for trouble" if they use non-Microsoft tools to develop on.
That does not mean Troll Tech can fall back on "economics of scale"... this "crossplatform feature" is laughable in the real world. Nobody can name 5 major commercial applications on Windows, that are using Qt. I can at least note that MusicMatch Jukebox and a handful of other Windows applications were ported to Windows, using winelib.
The point is, to make a SERIOUS challenge to the hearts and minds of small developers, something HAS TO CHANGE.
That something has to be one of:
GTK+ usability and performance improvements
"Qt for Shareware Edition", or other price/licensing adjustments not seen yet.
Linux really doesn't have something as "accessible" as Visual Basic, or MS Visual C++. KDE Developer Studio looks appealing, but, again, it has the same runtime licensing problems as Qt.
I'm pleased that TT has released a "GPL Edition" binary for Windows -- allowing GPL ports to and from Win32.
However, this still does not address the shareware problem. Shareware has pioneered lots of great ideas, many of which were stolen by Microsoft and then folded into Windows. On Linux, Shareware is derided (unless it is Quake) and I have no doubts that any popular Linux shareware would be "cloned" in GPL form. Perhaps. But as long as Troll Tech has a "one size fits all" commercial licensing plan, only the 600 pound gorillas like Microsoft and Borland can afford to use it.
Too bad.. because shareware authors are typically MORE anti-Microsoft than most developers!
Read. Your analogy just plain sucks, although it may serve your purposes enough. A better example would be a Holocost victim trying to recover stolen property from a German bank, and the bank says "that was SIXTY years ago old man!"
Look up the RECENT troubles in the Black Hills of Dakota. This is *still* going on. The courts have ruled that the Black Hills belong to the native peoples there, but have not been returned.
Leonard Peltier is in fact still in jail in 2001 for his American Indian Movement political activities, despite evidence and admissions that the FBI violated process and the law with his and other cases (such as planting evidence and lying to the court, which was proven in the trials of other people charged).
... just ask any Native American how good the word of our government is.
Expect COMPLETE PARITY between the laws governing "terrorism" and the war on "drugs".
The irony is, the people pushing for these laws are the same people who screamed bloody murder about Ruby Ridge, or Waco Texas. Now it's their turn.
And since ANONYMOUS TIPS can be used to gain a search warrent, I sincerely doubt the claim "none of this is admissible". Just launder you ill-gained evidence through an anonymous tip, get a warrant, and use that evidence instead. There are enough loopholes to fit a fleet of 18-wheelers through.
>I'm sorry, I just find that really hypocritical and I hope it at least makes sense to some people
It's equally easy to spin your arguement as "TrollTech wants the commercial software market all to themselves".
Sorry, what Troll Tech is doing is MANIPULATION. I wouldn't be surprised if The Kompany makes some money, and TT makes a *direct* investment in them...
Yes, you need to modify a few packages to get them to compile under Cygwin. The link I provided (to .jp) seems to have great documentation on the subject... take a look, it's probably what you're looking for.
KDE 1.x has ready-made packages for Cygwin, and installs painlessly (I've run it for the hey-look-at-this factor). I wish someone could do the same with Gnome 1.4.
Remember, Bungie was jumping into the Linux games market, with titles like Myth 2 (way cool game!).
Now we'll never see a port of this for Linux.
Although, I just bought a slew of Loki games, and I'm still playing Terminus.
>>I can't create a KDE application and sell it without buying a QT license for over $2000
>So you can't get rich on the efforts of others without giving them something back? Tough.
Your killer app is just going to have to be open source isn't it?
Yeah, it's all about giving NOTHING back... that's what he said right? NO. This is a favorite KDE strawman tactic (or maybe you miss the point)... to deflect all license criticism as "you must be a freeloader".
The above poster did not say he did not want or believe that *NOTHING* should be given back. He SAID it costs $2000 to develop a non-free application for KDE.
How many non-free applications do you own (or "use") on different platforms? I use quite a few that simply DON'T EXIST in the GPL world and you will only find them on Windows. Open source apps are not good at all at filling in small "niche" applications, and giving said applications a polished user interface.
Don't believe me? Go into ANY Linux #irc channel, and ask what application is closest to the batch image processing of "Paint Shop Pro". The answer you will hear is "write a perl script to loop around Image Magick". In #linux, often the answer to "What program does this" is usually "write a script". But that's OK, all this innovative shareware will probably be cloned as free software someday. Um, maybe. In the meantime, that lack of flexibility of Linux means it's yet another place I can't sneak Linux into the corporate world. Good job, you.
The point is not can or can not Jasc software afford the $2000 barrier to commercial software. Instead, my point is there are PLENTY of small software shops that would consider porting to Linux, but can't afford this high cost.
What you might call "scummy shareware", *I* would call "mom and pop software". It's where most great ideas get their start. In Windows, Shareware tends to be TOO commonplace... but that's Microsoft's fault (I mean, shipping Windows without a ZIP-capable program?? Please!!). Shareware would be less of a disease on Linux than it has with Windows.
I guess KDE is SO FREE SOFTWARE PURE that they don't mind polarizing the software world into the big Borlands and the Microsofts on one side, and the free software purists on the other. No small wanna-be software developers at all in the middle.
Guess where "innovation" comes from? The small software company. I wish I could say Microsoft's licensing took away more freedom than Troll Tech's, but it's just not true. We'll always be stuck copying other people's ideas, or taking the big-software crap that is given to us.
And I really get a kick out of people saying BECAUSE Troll Tech disallows development by small software companies, they must be MORE FREE than GNOME. Please. These are the same people who said "fuck the GPL" when it was convenient to violate the license.
Yes, you could build and run Evolution under Windows, but currently ONLY under Cygwin + an X11 server (this is still local on the Windows box). A Cygwin setup can be accomplished by a newbie. See links below for running GNOME under Cygwin on a Windows box.
Much of GNOME will not build natively, although the libraries themselves are designed to be portable, and GTK is working just fine as Win32 (see GIMP).
There are two kinds of Windows ports... X11 display based, and true "native" Win32. The former is easy to do; the latter is not yet possible (tho you can help!). It's likely that a "native GNOME for Windows" will be much easier, once GTK 2.0 is released.
Links regarding running GNOME or compiling under a local X11 display:c ygwin.html
http://news.gnome.org/976323862/index_html
http://xfree86.cygwin.com/screenshots/
http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley/1596/en/
From the GNOME FAQ, regarding native GNOME for M$ Windows:h tml
http://canvas.gnome.org:65348/gnomefaq/html/x359.
A lot of people want to port GNOME and GTK apps over to Windows. To conquer the enemy they say, you have to enter their territory, then sway them to your culture (OS). ;-)
Question is, would federal security have done any better at stopping those knives? OK, a government security guard isn't concerned about profit and cutting costs. On the other hand (based on what goes on with other branches of the government) a government security guard isn't exactly worried about losing his/her job either.
True, but the police generally do a good job, and this is a police job we are talking about. This is not a "big unknown".
There are those that want to privatize the police forces also (which frightens the hell out of me!).
In this case, I think it is obvious the high costs are worth it, but you will agree that the costs will be higher?
Sure costs are generally higher if the government runs things. That needs to be factored into any decision for where jobs belong. OTOH, the government is *generally* preferred when it involves the PUBLIC TRUST (police, fire, food inspection, etc).
Government agencies tend to waste money, but so do private defense contractors. Accountability and protection for "whistle blowers" are key to preventing abuses in any situation.
Personally, airline flights are TOO CHEAP and too frequent. These planes are not filled to capacity yet they fly anyhow. That's a lot of pollutants going into OUR air (no matter where you live). The airlines are broke and only survive because their investors have the clout to shakedown the US taxpayers for $15 Billion (with nary a cent for the 80,000+ laid off airline employees).
I agree that privatization does not equal progress, in the same sense that giving people what they want is not always the best thing. SUVs are probably a good example of that.
How about space-bound SUV's?
Besides, I don't see how space can be fairly privatized. Who owns it, and who decides how the spoils are divided?
Seriously, I envision such a thing as a huge welfare grant to corporations. Who is the US government to start selling space rights? Is this a task for the UN? Whose national coffers will the taxes on profits go into (or more likely, there won't be any taxes).
In a planet that is rapidly warming, who is going to regulate how many space flights per year our atmosphere can handle? More likely, investors will argue the market will take care of pollution on its own.
We already can't manage our resources here. Most animals do not poo in their drinking water... we dump plenty of things in our rivers (or we have just recently stopped, depending where you live).
Space would be a dumping ground.
Expect space to be "auctioned off", just like the FCC auctioned off the airwaves, and kept the profits (this exceeded the FCC's mandate).
Sorry if this sounds gloom and doom, but I don't see anything in our past or present to indicate we are resposible enough for what's out there. We still fight over oil, fer christs sake.
Get your facts right. The knifes used in the attack was placed on the airline and never passed through airline security.
Oh PLEASE. Are you really claiming to KNOW how they got the knives on board? If you're just speculating, say so. If not, call the FBI with your "new evidence".
Even since September 11, there have been several cases of weapons getting by private security.
Another example: transAtlantic boats. Columbus had to go begging to the government of Spain to get funding to send the first couple of boats over here,and they were putting them over here at the rate of about one every 2-3 years... But the mid-16th century, colonization was in private hands (in England and France, at least), and I'm sure you'll agree that transatlantic commerce got "a little better" as a result.
Interesting that you would use this example, since the very outcome of what you suggest was one of the largest documented instances of genocide. Colonization sounds so much better in the 4th grade history books, than say mass murder, rape, theft, broken treaties and enslavement.
Privitazation does not equal progress. We already see what happens when we have privatized airline security. Privatization is certainly useful for some things, like sanitation and road building. Privatizing NASA is pure corporate welfare giveaways.
A primary cause of NASA's huge expenses is the SAFETY measures they make. Nothing's foolproof, but NASA is responible for human life. Privatize them, and the resulting corporation will still put on a show they care about life... but it will be done through a filter called "risk assessment". Translated, that means "where is the sweet spot between protecting our personel assets vs. maximizing profit".
See you in hell.
The above post was modded DOWN at 5PM EST US time.
There doesn't seem to be anything "trollish" about the comment. In fact it's even perfectly "on-topic", since Hemos asserted the American Southwest [voluntarily] "joined" the USA, and the poster merely pointed out the truth. What's wrong with that??
For moderation to work, it has to PUNISH outragously bad moderation. This moderator should be on "probation" or suspended since they can't handle the responsability.
It's not the posters fault that Hemos learned his history from Walt Disney movies (and for that matter, CT learned to spell from badly translated movie subtitles).
If people studied more at school...