I believe that UT2004, just pops itself up and sets a fullscreen flag.
But even if it did say "always on top", all that a popup has to do is to have "always on top" as well. I do not actually know how the stay on top contention is restored, and unless defined in ICCCM, diferent windowmanagers will handle it differently.
It is not a bug. The game does not have a complete control over the screen. The manager has that. If I configure the manager to put up a window over the screen, I surely want that done.
BTW, this is not in windows. This is on X11/linux, and X11 allows popping windows over the top fullscreen window.
And there are no side effects, save for blitting delay.
Sorry, just me being flippant again. I thought the whole big head comment would tip you off.:-)
It did. I just could not express my sarcasm in a sentence form. Verbally that could be done using intonation, but no such luxury in slashdot posts.
Just to stuff in one last comment, the whole graphical tty business is cool, but I still think that a single manager is preferable due to the critical notification. No application should ever look for which TTY is active, and then try to find the owning application to display a warning to you. I will still believe that one single manager is the right way.
And I am waiting till they properly split the codebase. This is the reason why I am watching kdrive very closely, as it has the potential to become the properly architectured X11.
Probably the DVDCSS license/contract. I will take a guess that since congress did not specifically get paid to enforce the contract, they are now waking up to pressure from various groups that they have no financial reason to resist. Hence parts of the contract will become void by law.
Meanwhile, my illegal dvd linux box skips anything I want just fine. However, each time I watch a movie, I am adding a maximum of 20 years to my prison sentence.
People were argueing with you about X11's display hotplugging. I thought everyone knew it sucked. XRANDR is great for a single display, but restarting X (or starting a new one) is annoying, and should be properly handles by xinerama (or something similar) IMO.
However the bigger problems are that the driver support still sucks.
But here is some more troll-candy:) for you. atitvout.
The reason I said troll-candy is due to that it both helps your and my comments at the same time. It is an application that goes over X to switch a mode in a video card, without X realizing the problem. Unfortunately X sometimes reacts poorly to the change.
Your (would-be) point: if the driver provided the right functionality then any program should be able to switch displays.
My point: the ability to switch displays should only be allowed by the driver which currently owns the terminal. That means if X is running, X is the only thing that is allowed to make the call.
So back to our discussion: So suppose we split the x-server into the hardware controlling part and a desktop part. How many assumptions must the desktop part make about the hardware part.
Think the current terminal nightmare: application crashes leaving terminal in raw mode, application now in control of the terminal does not see the problem causing the terminal to become useless.
This same issue would be the case in your new design. How do you think one should deal with that?
PS> Agree with you? I did not know we were arguing? (In fact, once I understood your point, I wholehearedly agreed, with the exception of this whole bypassing the screen manager business).
You got me more interested in the issue, and I am currently reading a great
article on this topic written by keith packard
So unless you are Keith Packard, or have read it already, I highly recommend it.
The X11 system can then build on top of that, but something else (e.g. a video game) can request that X11 temporarily relinquish control.
Ok. So what you are basically looking for is an api for X to stop sending stuff to the video processing code, and let the programs do it directly. Hmm..there is some point to that statement, but then these video processing drivers will need to have a way to translate things like xvideo->video card specific calls. In other words, all the drivers will need to present the same interface.
To some extent this is already done in X. The only thing that X offers on top of that are windowing primitives, and a level of indirection for the desktop (great for xinerama, virtual desktop, etc).
You've just stated the problem. X11 is controlling the graphics system. That's a problem, because there's no way to do anything graphical *without* X11. This particularly sucks as X11 support for things as simple as changing the screen mode or reporting hardware capabilities, well, sucks.
I will to some extent disagree here. X's fixed resolution/desktop size issues do suck (although XRANDR pretty much fixed most resolution based annoyances), but reliquishing all control does not help at all. The only thing that separating the hardware specific parts from X will get you is an ibility to use those drivers outside of X. I do not see how that would suddenly help the situation.
Now you've got it! The trick is that we don't need X mucking things up at this level. X should be one step above. If X is directly managing hardware, then it's doing something wrong.
The thing is, X is not mucking around that level. The driver part of X is mucking around the hardware level. The rest of X is completely hardware independent.
So basically what you are suggesting is to move the X video drivers out of X, and make them separate.so with a more or less standardized interface based on X extensions. In other words if your video card supports video capabilities, then the driver will provide XVIDEO. If it has GL support, then it will provide GLX, etc. All of these interfaces should follow some spec.
Do note however, that this will probably not be kernel code. A lot of capabilities will probably require some emulation, as no card will support everything in GPU. And having that much code in the kernel is scary.
To some extent I like the idea. That way I can use the video card API with whatever app. There are a few tricky things. First, there is a similar issue as that encountered by the terminal: who owns the screen. This is the main purpose of X. X owns the screen, partitioning it to other applications. If you do not have a manager, issues will become apparent quickly. Although I will find it humorous to receive a TSTOP in response to a GL call.
The hacker in me absolutely loves the idea. I would be able to write GL programs on the console, and will get my screen by simply using termio. However, the realist in me suggests that 99% of the time you want a manager anyway. Even if I am playing a full size game, there are programs that need to be able to grab the screen and display critical messages. And in that case the drivers that are in X will only be directly used by X, their functionality multiplexed among applications, and hence there is no real need to have the driver elsewhere. (Of course this assumes you will use X as the only manager, but if not you can simply move the driver to the other manager).
Basically, I just want to say that what you are complaining about will not bring about wonderful new functionality, but will simplify the architecture, and make it less tied to X (assuming video card capabilities can be standardized to one API).
What X.org/XFree86 really need to do is separate the graphical and interface device layers from the desktop interface layer. i.e. It should be possible for any system program to be able to ask for exclusive video card access, even when the Desktop is not running. Currently, you have to chose between running X11 or using the external SuperVGA library.
What do you mean by this?
Do you mean separate the device drivers from the X11 libraries? Separate it from the window/keyboard events? Make it a render only environment? How do I not make the choice between X11 or SuperVGA? How can I run them both?
I am confused by what you are trying to say. The graphical system is a shared resource. X11 becomes the manager of that resource, and naturally does not want any other people trying to simultaneously manage it (SuperVGA).
You'll note that this is how the X server functions on systems like Sun Sparcs. On my UltraSparc, the system is ALWAYS in graphics mode. So it is on linux, if you include the frame buffer drier in the kernel. In fact this is required for non-x86 machines.
Running X just makes the X-Server take over the graphical screen. Very modular, very flexible. The same on linux, it simply switches the vt, hence the updates to framebuffer from a different vt are ignored. Thus X takes over the frame buffer, and the video card. Why is this modular? What modules are you even talking about? Frambuffers?
Not to mention that it places the graphics card support back in the OS drivers where it belongs, and not in a server with a focused purpose. Sure, if you want to run the system with all the acceleration that a frame buffer can provide (hint:none). The correct way of doing this is closer to what the DRI and nvidia people are doing. Stuff the hardware specific things into the kernel driver, and pass a more machine independent calls via a device file into the user mode. Then in the user mode, more advanced processing can be done (driver specific gl implementation, driver specific video implemenation, etc). This should be , and is in the user mode of all major systems.
Remember, the Unix philosophy is to keep everything in simple, bite sized chunks. The X.org/XFree86 implementation is the anti-thesis of that (although they are attempting to compensate with their portable driver loader design).
This is the most sane statement of the above. The X.org is not very modular, but that is mostly due to their build process. What I would like to see is separate switchable plugins providing driver specific implementations of each of X11's extensions. That would make X11 a whole lot more modular.
Also the X11 base needs to be cleaned up a bit. There is X11 API that became very deprecated that all of it has been replaced by an extension. (The old X11 font handling comes to mind)
However, now that I have ranted a bit, I will say that I still do not get what you meant in your post.
Re:There are many other reasons to switch from del
on
Dell Still Intel Only
·
· Score: 1
That goes for all brands. Dells have overheating and crashing problems. HP/compaq with electrical problems. Toshibas with this device will suddenly not work problems. In general assume any laptop is a piece of crap. Yes, that goes for you too mac fans: I have seen many powerbooks and ibooks with screens practically falling off, and keys that damaged the screen by pressing into them, causing "bright spots" which most people just tried to prevent by using a cloth placed on the keyboard.
My advice is ignore advice, and research the specific model that you are planning to get.
And can someone tell me why IBM is still selling laptops if they sold off their laptop business to Lenovo. I am confused on who will handle warranty, etc.
You know they might just something stupid like that.
they charge for fullscreen
It will be utterly idiotic to not include this in a player.
they charge for fullscreen
Wait. I think you are being serious.
they charge for fullscreen
Wow. I actually believe you now.
they charge for fullscreen
BWAHAHAHAHA. Silly apple, shafting their non-paying customer base. The idea of buying a mac has been on my mind for a few years now. (since OSX became stable). But each time I always reconsider, and things like these are the reason. It is like the entire computer is full of shareware, and I have heard of people spending hundreds to make their desktops feel right, and their little tools functioning. Seriously...there are things in the mac world which cost thirty bucks, while they are a simple checkbox/app in the linux world. Virtual desktops / focus follows mouse come to mind.
And people wonder why some want to install linux on a mac.
Man was he ever pissed off when he found out he can't display a movie fullscreen on his nearly two thousand dollar monitor.
Huh? Does it not have hardware scaling? I thought G5 came with a radeon. With almost any accelerating videocard, the CPU is not involved when scaling, which means same performance windowed/fullscreen.
Or is your friend trying to play 1080p/i movie or possibly at obscene framerates.
In that case I demand to know where you got the video.
Phew. I was afraid that those 802.11 chips I had embedded into myself made me more susceptible to the virus. But seeing how it only spreads through the keyboard...........uh oh...... I knew I should have implanted a usb keyboard driver chip as well. Well I will go find a plastic bubble / faraday cage combo, and will sit there untill this thing blows over.
I am not talking about anything specific. For me, gimp does everything I need. Sure I will spend extra 5 to 10 minutes finding where some command is, but I am not a professional, and given that I need to do this, oh say, once a year, I would rather not have the price attached. Thus GIMP is perfect.
The point of my post is that there are people out there which think that if they want to do a certain task, they have to have the tools that professionals use, and that currently in the public mind is photoshop. Thus those people want the full photoshop and nothing else will do. But they can not afford the full photoshop, and do not want to spend time learning other tools, since those tools are not going to ever become useful (in their opinion).
The only interesting observation in my post is that these people exist. The question is how to advertise or reach those people to market them products. Be it low cost photoshop light (or whatever it is called), a different tool for smaller price (PSP, Fireworks), or a OSS tool (GIMP), these people will use none of these by default. Similarly, MS Office is the right tool for office editing, why use Abiword or OO.o. Etc. Etc. These people think that the underdog alternatives are underdog for a reason. How does one go about convincing these people otherwise?
Excellent reply. The other posters did not get the point that some people just have this mindset, and they underlined why the mindset was wrong. I knew that already, and they added nothing.
Your response, however, is great. You picked up exactly the kind of thinking that would happen if the same mindset was applied to real world situations. I wonder why this idea that why settle for less when you can pirate the best is so prevalent in the software world, but it seems like the same applies in China where the starter edition is going to have exactly the same success for exactly the same reason.
That, and you absolutely cracked me up with "Natalie Portman or bust!".
Slashdot Mirror
Unless we figure out billg's slashdot nick. I am sure he posts his real thoughts here.
What's more annoying is when you hit an invalid key and the console "blinks." I swear, you can see it paint the screen.
This effect is probably solely responsible for the origin of the infamous "slowaris".
I believe that UT2004, just pops itself up and sets a fullscreen flag.
But even if it did say "always on top", all that a popup has to do is to have "always on top" as well. I do not actually know how the stay on top contention is restored, and unless defined in ICCCM, diferent windowmanagers will handle it differently.
It is not a bug. The game does not have a complete control over the screen. The manager has that. If I configure the manager to put up a window over the screen, I surely want that done.
BTW, this is not in windows. This is on X11/linux, and X11 allows popping windows over the top fullscreen window.
And there are no side effects, save for blitting delay.
It does now. I have gaim set up to popup windows only when certain people wend them, but not for others. It pops up right over ut2004.
I'm still not clear on what sort of critical notification should interrupt a game.
;-)
An IM from a girl I asked out.
Sorry, just me being flippant again. I thought the whole big head comment would tip you off. :-)
It did. I just could not express my sarcasm in a sentence form. Verbally that could be done using intonation, but no such luxury in slashdot posts.
Just to stuff in one last comment, the whole graphical tty business is cool, but I still think that a single manager is preferable due to the critical notification. No application should ever look for which TTY is active, and then try to find the owning application to display a warning to you. I will still believe that one single manager is the right way.
And I am waiting till they properly split the codebase. This is the reason why I am watching kdrive very closely, as it has the potential to become the properly architectured X11.
Probably the DVDCSS license/contract. I will take a guess that since congress did not specifically get paid to enforce the contract, they are now waking up to pressure from various groups that they have no financial reason to resist. Hence parts of the contract will become void by law.
Meanwhile, my illegal dvd linux box skips anything I want just fine. However, each time I watch a movie, I am adding a maximum of 20 years to my prison sentence.
People were argueing with you about X11's display hotplugging. I thought everyone knew it sucked. XRANDR is great for a single display, but restarting X (or starting a new one) is annoying, and should be properly handles by xinerama (or something similar) IMO.
:) for you. atitvout.
However the bigger problems are that the driver support still sucks.
But here is some more troll-candy
The reason I said troll-candy is due to that it both helps your and my comments at the same time. It is an application that goes over X to switch a mode in a video card, without X realizing the problem. Unfortunately X sometimes reacts poorly to the change.
Your (would-be) point: if the driver provided the right functionality then any program should be able to switch displays.
My point: the ability to switch displays should only be allowed by the driver which currently owns the terminal. That means if X is running, X is the only thing that is allowed to make the call.
So back to our discussion: So suppose we split the x-server into the hardware controlling part and a desktop part. How many assumptions must the desktop part make about the hardware part.
Think the current terminal nightmare: application crashes leaving terminal in raw mode, application now in control of the terminal does not see the problem causing the terminal to become useless.
This same issue would be the case in your new design. How do you think one should deal with that?
PS> Agree with you? I did not know we were arguing? (In fact, once I understood your point, I wholehearedly agreed, with the exception of this whole bypassing the screen manager business).
You got me more interested in the issue, and I am currently reading a great article on this topic written by keith packard So unless you are Keith Packard, or have read it already, I highly recommend it.
The X11 system can then build on top of that, but something else (e.g. a video game) can request that X11 temporarily relinquish control.
.so with a more or less standardized interface based on X extensions. In other words if your video card supports video capabilities, then the driver will provide XVIDEO. If it has GL support, then it will provide GLX, etc. All of these interfaces should follow some spec.
Ok. So what you are basically looking for is an api for X to stop sending stuff to the video processing code, and let the programs do it directly. Hmm..there is some point to that statement, but then these video processing drivers will need to have a way to translate things like xvideo->video card specific calls. In other words, all the drivers will need to present the same interface.
To some extent this is already done in X. The only thing that X offers on top of that are windowing primitives, and a level of indirection for the desktop (great for xinerama, virtual desktop, etc).
You've just stated the problem. X11 is controlling the graphics system. That's a problem, because there's no way to do anything graphical *without* X11. This particularly sucks as X11 support for things as simple as changing the screen mode or reporting hardware capabilities, well, sucks.
I will to some extent disagree here. X's fixed resolution/desktop size issues do suck (although XRANDR pretty much fixed most resolution based annoyances), but reliquishing all control does not help at all. The only thing that separating the hardware specific parts from X will get you is an ibility to use those drivers outside of X. I do not see how that would suddenly help the situation.
Now you've got it! The trick is that we don't need X mucking things up at this level. X should be one step above. If X is directly managing hardware, then it's doing something wrong.
The thing is, X is not mucking around that level. The driver part of X is mucking around the hardware level. The rest of X is completely hardware independent.
So basically what you are suggesting is to move the X video drivers out of X, and make them separate
Do note however, that this will probably not be kernel code. A lot of capabilities will probably require some emulation, as no card will support everything in GPU. And having that much code in the kernel is scary.
To some extent I like the idea. That way I can use the video card API with whatever app. There are a few tricky things. First, there is a similar issue as that encountered by the terminal: who owns the screen. This is the main purpose of X. X owns the screen, partitioning it to other applications. If you do not have a manager, issues will become apparent quickly. Although I will find it humorous to receive a TSTOP in response to a GL call.
The hacker in me absolutely loves the idea. I would be able to write GL programs on the console, and will get my screen by simply using termio. However, the realist in me suggests that 99% of the time you want a manager anyway. Even if I am playing a full size game, there are programs that need to be able to grab the screen and display critical messages. And in that case the drivers that are in X will only be directly used by X, their functionality multiplexed among applications, and hence there is no real need to have the driver elsewhere. (Of course this assumes you will use X as the only manager, but if not you can simply move the driver to the other manager).
Basically, I just want to say that what you are complaining about will not bring about wonderful new functionality, but will simplify the architecture, and make it less tied to X (assuming video card capabilities can be standardized to one API).
What X.org/XFree86 really need to do is separate the graphical and interface device layers from the desktop interface layer. i.e. It should be possible for any system program to be able to ask for exclusive video card access, even when the Desktop is not running. Currently, you have to chose between running X11 or using the external SuperVGA library.
What do you mean by this?
Do you mean separate the device drivers from the X11 libraries? Separate it from the window/keyboard events? Make it a render only environment? How do I not make the choice between X11 or SuperVGA? How can I run them both?
I am confused by what you are trying to say. The graphical system is a shared resource. X11 becomes the manager of that resource, and naturally does not want any other people trying to simultaneously manage it (SuperVGA).
You'll note that this is how the X server functions on systems like Sun Sparcs. On my UltraSparc, the system is ALWAYS in graphics mode.
So it is on linux, if you include the frame buffer drier in the kernel. In fact this is required for non-x86 machines.
Running X just makes the X-Server take over the graphical screen. Very modular, very flexible.
The same on linux, it simply switches the vt, hence the updates to framebuffer from a different vt are ignored. Thus X takes over the frame buffer, and the video card. Why is this modular? What modules are you even talking about? Frambuffers?
Not to mention that it places the graphics card support back in the OS drivers where it belongs, and not in a server with a focused purpose.
Sure, if you want to run the system with all the acceleration that a frame buffer can provide (hint:none). The correct way of doing this is closer to what the DRI and nvidia people are doing. Stuff the hardware specific things into the kernel driver, and pass a more machine independent calls via a device file into the user mode. Then in the user mode, more advanced processing can be done (driver specific gl implementation, driver specific video implemenation, etc). This should be , and is in the user mode of all major systems.
Remember, the Unix philosophy is to keep everything in simple, bite sized chunks. The X.org/XFree86 implementation is the anti-thesis of that (although they are attempting to compensate with their portable driver loader design).
This is the most sane statement of the above. The X.org is not very modular, but that is mostly due to their build process. What I would like to see is separate switchable plugins providing driver specific implementations of each of X11's extensions. That would make X11 a whole lot more modular.
Also the X11 base needs to be cleaned up a bit. There is X11 API that became very deprecated that all of it has been replaced by an extension. (The old X11 font handling comes to mind)
However, now that I have ranted a bit, I will say that I still do not get what you meant in your post.
That goes for all brands. Dells have overheating and crashing problems. HP/compaq with electrical problems. Toshibas with this device will suddenly not work problems. In general assume any laptop is a piece of crap. Yes, that goes for you too mac fans: I have seen many powerbooks and ibooks with screens practically falling off, and keys that damaged the screen by pressing into them, causing "bright spots" which most people just tried to prevent by using a cloth placed on the keyboard.
My advice is ignore advice, and research the specific model that you are planning to get.
And can someone tell me why IBM is still selling laptops if they sold off their laptop business to Lenovo. I am confused on who will handle warranty, etc.
RIAA Lawyer: Hey, good one! Do you want to work for us?
Yet, they buy iPods and wear brand name shirts.
No, college kids are not poor, they are just cheap when it does not enhance their "style".
Total Cost Delta:
+$2 modem
-$5 windows
-----------------
$3 profit
Why not just buy more expensive modems and save money at the same time.
they charge for fullscreen
That would be a hilarious joke.
they charge for fullscreen
You know they might just something stupid like that.
they charge for fullscreen
It will be utterly idiotic to not include this in a player.
they charge for fullscreen
Wait. I think you are being serious.
they charge for fullscreen
Wow. I actually believe you now.
they charge for fullscreen
BWAHAHAHAHA. Silly apple, shafting their non-paying customer base. The idea of buying a mac has been on my mind for a few years now. (since OSX became stable). But each time I always reconsider, and things like these are the reason. It is like the entire computer is full of shareware, and I have heard of people spending hundreds to make their desktops feel right, and their little tools functioning. Seriously...there are things in the mac world which cost thirty bucks, while they are a simple checkbox/app in the linux world. Virtual desktops / focus follows mouse come to mind.
And people wonder why some want to install linux on a mac.
Man was he ever pissed off when he found out he can't display a movie fullscreen on his nearly two thousand dollar monitor.
Huh? Does it not have hardware scaling? I thought G5 came with a radeon. With almost any accelerating videocard, the CPU is not involved when scaling, which means same performance windowed/fullscreen.
Or is your friend trying to play 1080p/i movie or possibly at obscene framerates.
In that case I demand to know where you got the video.
But is it unrolled?
It is clearly a hoax. Nigeria is way too dark.
Phew. I was afraid that those 802.11 chips I had embedded into myself made me more susceptible to the virus. But seeing how it only spreads through the keyboard...... .....uh oh...... I knew I should have implanted a usb keyboard driver chip as well. Well I will go find a plastic bubble / faraday cage combo, and will sit there untill this thing blows over.
I will see you later.
I am not talking about anything specific. For me, gimp does everything I need. Sure I will spend extra 5 to 10 minutes finding where some command is, but I am not a professional, and given that I need to do this, oh say, once a year, I would rather not have the price attached. Thus GIMP is perfect.
The point of my post is that there are people out there which think that if they want to do a certain task, they have to have the tools that professionals use, and that currently in the public mind is photoshop. Thus those people want the full photoshop and nothing else will do. But they can not afford the full photoshop, and do not want to spend time learning other tools, since those tools are not going to ever become useful (in their opinion).
The only interesting observation in my post is that these people exist. The question is how to advertise or reach those people to market them products. Be it low cost photoshop light (or whatever it is called), a different tool for smaller price (PSP, Fireworks), or a OSS tool (GIMP), these people will use none of these by default. Similarly, MS Office is the right tool for office editing, why use Abiword or OO.o. Etc. Etc. These people think that the underdog alternatives are underdog for a reason. How does one go about convincing these people otherwise?
Excellent reply. The other posters did not get the point that some people just have this mindset, and they underlined why the mindset was wrong. I knew that already, and they added nothing.
Your response, however, is great. You picked up exactly the kind of thinking that would happen if the same mindset was applied to real world situations. I wonder why this idea that why settle for less when you can pirate the best is so prevalent in the software world, but it seems like the same applies in China where the starter edition is going to have exactly the same success for exactly the same reason.
That, and you absolutely cracked me up with "Natalie Portman or bust!".
Bravo! (Moderators do your stuff)
He is not the only one.
Well, I may smell, but at least I do not get walked on. Take that!