They actually have released several versions over the past few years. Although, recently, they have been a bit slow to realese new versions, over the past year or so. FreeDOS is functional and can be used to do things including run many older DOS titles. I think they have been saving the 1.0 version for a point where they have obtained a very high level of compatability with MS-DOS.
I have used FreeDOS to run several programs, and it is useable for many tasks, although it still does have some way to go before it is a perfect imitation. Nevertheless, I am glad to see it is still progressing, since I do think there is a use for this kind of thing.
I have used FreeDOS previously and indeed it has quite a bit of importance and valuable to use, both as an OS for older hardware, and as well, for running old DOS software games on newer hardware. I have run FreeDOS on Bochs for nostgalgia's sake, to run various old DOS titles. A fully MS-DOS compatable OS does indeed have many applications, such as running older software, nostgalgia, preservation of old computer operating systems, and for older hardware and modern hardware for which a small, lightweight OS is needed.
I dont think using radio signals, instead of wires is really going to help your privacy much. How is transmitting something over the air where anyone can recieve it better than sending it over wires, which someone has to tap into physically?
If you really want privacy, what you want is some really strong, good encryption. I would, if you are paranoid, encrypt your messages many times each time with a different key.
People often claim wireless is the solution to everything. It definitely is not. RF spectrum is very dear and limited, and there are often quite a few fights over who will get to use which bands. Its not an unlimited resource. Fiber optics can deliver far greater data capacity than wireless ever will.
I agree completely. This whole thing about these dress codes is about taking away peoples individuality, and as well, allowing corporations to control and dictate to people on even minor things that are completely irrelevant to the job at hand. What does suits and ties have to do with good programming? Absolutely nothing. In fact, I would say that if I am wearing something comfortable I am much more likely to produce better code than if I am wearing uncomfortable business clothing.
It seems corporations want to turn people into mindless robots who are carbon copies of the model that they are expected to conform to, rather than unique individuals.
I think, employees should form unions and demand that these corporations loosen up the dress code and even allow employees to work from home (hey, its good for profits and productivity. By people working in their own homes, the company could save loads of money on office space, and if people are working at home, they are much less likely to pick up the flu bug and so on at the office. There really is not excuse since with video conferencing with whiteboards, and the internet the employees could all still interact in much the same way they did in the office).
Doesn't Linux have some kind of a driver API to support cameras? Does Gphoto2 contain camera support or use external drivers via an API. Building in support rather than keeping the driver and app seperate is a bad idea since it makes it more difficult to use other apps with the camera.
I think another interesting concept was IPv7 proposals. These put some additional address fields into some unused space in the IPv4 headers, if memory serves me. Each IPv4 address would basically contain a massive address space then.
The IPv4 routers would just send all of the packets right through, ignoring the additional fields. This basically allows a new address space to be layered on top of IPv4, although, it does require hosts to have upgraded software to understand the new fields.
Perhaps I did not explain clearly enough. If we have an IPv4 host on an IPv4 network, that wants to connect to say, awebsite.com. However, awebsite.com has an IPv6 address. The host would send a DNS request to its DNS server, the DNS server instead of replying with the IPv6 address, it will provide a temporary IPv4 private address (using an address block set aside for IPv4->IPv6 routing purposes perhaps) back. The IPv4 requesting host will be using a gateway server that is working in concert with the DNS server. The DNS server will tell the gateway that all connections to the temporary IPv4 address it gave to the client should be redirected to the IPv6 address for awebsite.com. The gateway/router would redirect the connection as such. This may not be a perfect solution. I do not claim to be an expert, but rather am thinking about possible solutions.
I believe that the design of IPv6 was flawed in ways that it has inhibited adoption which could have been much more rapid. The IPv4 address space should have been a subset of the IPv6 address space. This would allow easy interconnectivity to Ipv4. The other direction, for going from Ipv4 to Ipv6 is trickier, but could involve manipulation of DNS. When a ipv4 peer requests a IP for a DNS address, the DNS server will reply with a private IPv4 address, the router/gateway associated with the DNS server will catch the connection to this IP and reroute the connection to the proper IPv6 address. It does only work with DNS addresses, yes. A special block of Ipv4 addresses should have been set aside for this purpose exclusively. Problem solved. Most people use DNS anyway. Other solutions could be devised to access a ipv6 address without DNS from ipv4, a protocol that would allow users to configure a forwarding route on the router via some utility, so that all connections to a private IP are rerouted to a specified IPv6 address. This could have eventually been built right into clients as well. This would have allowed a gradual switchover. The problem with the current switchover plan is that since there are so few Ipv6 users, there is not much incentive for websites to make themselves accessible on ipv6, but at the same time, users see no benefit from moving to ipv6, since there are not many websites avialable from it. So in order to access the internet, people need two seperate Ip configurations, people are not going to bother with ipv6 since it is pointless to them, all of the websites are on ipv4. Thus we get nowhere. It is absolutely true that there must be a gradual transition period where both protocols will be used and where both protocols must be interoperable.
I disagree. I believe that free speech is a basic HUMAN right, and that it is a right that should be available to all humans by birth. It is an inalienable right, and it is one that no government has a right to abridge or restrict. China has no right to make rules that violate such a human right.
Re:My short experience with perl...
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 1
No, try @array=([1, 2], [3, 4], 5, [6, 7, 8]);
That should work. see, you can do it in Perl too. The [] when used in such a way create array references. An array with embedded arrays is an array with array references in it. The embedded arrays are embedded as array references. Perl does flatten the structure if you use () enclosures exclusively, so thats why you use [] (or {} for hashes) for the embedded structures.
I agree, Linux allows you to run as much or as little as you need, while Windows makes you run the whole thing, GUI and all, whether you need it or not. FVWM2 would also work quite well on a 486 by the way. The 486 would even run much faster than Windows and use less memory on Linux without even having a GUI loaded at all. It is this kind of modularity that is so important. This is why the design of X was so intelligent, keeping the window manager and desktop environment, widgets, etc, out of the server allows the user to run as little as they need, or as much as they need. A user does not have to use large amounts of RAM on a big window manager when all they need is something basic. People can choose the window manager they need, and there is a vast array from ones that take a few kb, to dozens of mb with all the bells and whistles.
Fifth Element and Robocop arent "modern"? The contributor must not realise that the history of film entertainment does extend beyond the 1980s. Metropolis, Wizard of Oz, etc, those are considered classics.
Of course faster broadband is important and would be quite useable. I suppose the only thing that these people assume people will want to use is static web pages. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Video content, especially HD will require massive bandwidth, as well as realisitc 3D multi player games. These people have got to be kidding themselves..
These arguments are similar to the ridicluous and absurd "why would anyone need a faster computer" argument. People assume that all people will want to do is use a word processor, and ignore gaming, especially CPU intensive HD video and editing and 3D rendering which is currently held back by CPU and storage limitations, and so on. I think, if we increase the CPU speeds and transfer speeds, new technologies will be developed to utilise them. These people have no imagination it seems.
Re:Distribution on Windows
on
Why Use GTK+?
·
· Score: 1
I disagree completely. With high speed internet connections becoming so common today, this isnt nearly as much of a problem than it was before. Even at modem speeds, it still isnt a problem, it might take an hour, but the user can do other things while its downloading. Its not like there are not other Windows applications that are this large, they are quite common.
The benefits of GTK, cross platform code, programs that can be easily ported to many OSs, makes having to include the library on windows packages worth it, in my opinion. GTK provides a lot of features that make give an app designer a lot of flexibility, this is well worth the download time.
I have found Perl to the easiest language to both learn and use. Its syntax is logical and not difficult to grasp in my opinion.
As far as being slow, it is probably similar to other VM languages in speed, such as Java or Python. Furthermore, Parrot will provide a JIT/AIT Just in time/ahead of time compiler which allows code to be natively executed on the CPU.
I was disturbed when the original MP3.com went out of business, since it was such a good source of independant, alternative music, and real variety (I like a lot of different genres of music and like to mix it up), and also would burn the songs onto CD and ship them to you and of course you could buy the MP3s. It was very convenient, central, easy source to search and find independant music out there. It was great since I did not have to listen same old dull crap that is put out by the big labels every year.
I hardly ever listen to the radio any longer since it seems they play the same songs over and over again, which are ussually the most irritating and obnoxious ones. If they are not irrating at first, they become so after you have heard them play it 20 times. I therefore never listen to the corporate (clear channel, etc) stations anymore.
There seems much less variety, both in songs and genres on radio today, even compared with 10 or 20 years ago. What music is played on the radio seems even more and more controlled by marketing and management. It is well know that in many cases all DJs do all day is swap the CDs out of the player according to instructions regarding exactly what to play from the marketers and managers. Its probably not about variety and choice and good music, but about what they want people to listen to and buy. And I think people are starting to have enough being fed the same old crap.
I do think the slip in the quality of radio (especially within the last year it seems), also has something to do with the simultaneosly hideous situation with popular music releases, which are massively marketed, tied in with movies and what not, but in my opinion sound little better than fingernails on a blackboard. I think particularly many people unfortunately do listen to the miserable corporate stations, and since most of what is there sounds awful, people are not very convinced to go buy any of it.
I think that a big reason people may not be buying a lot of music is that so much of the popular music today sounds, at least to me, so horrible and unpleasant I cannot stand to listen to it.
Also I think that the styles of music marketed have become much more limited, especially what they play on the radio, and what is being marketed by the major labels. There seems to be much less variety on the radio today than there was 20 years ago.
It seems like all of the good music styles have gone by the wayside and the music industry seems to be rather stagnated, very little variety or quality.
I think one of the greatest advancements I would like to see is GUIs that actually give the end user extremely fine control over it both through GUI and not just code (although the full cofigurability should be avialable via both). It seems few UIs achieve that today and ram what the developers idea of good UI design is down the throats of the users and arrogantly assume that what works best for them works best for everyone. In reality, what may be perfect for one person may be useless for another, and a feature which seems useless to one person may be essential and indespensible to another. I think users should be given complete freedom to completely configure GUI software to their needs, rather than have very rigid behaviours forced upon them by developers who think their way is the only way.
I think we also need more features and functionality, but it should be up to the user to decide for themselves what to use, i think a 3D paradigm would be quite interesting. But of course it should not be rammed down peoples throats. It sometimes offends me how a few seem to take it upon themselves to decide how everyone else has to use their computer.
First, I will say that the notion that Perl is only generally used for small "quick and dirty" programs, or that it is only useful for doing so is atrocious. I have used Perl to write programs that have 10,000+ lines and greater. There really is not much preventing the language being used in such a way, it provides a good environment with needed tools to make it easy. Perl also does not encourage unreadable code, I have found it just as easy to write good code in Perl than other languages.
As far as IDEs, I really cant stand to use emacs or vi, i prefer things like floating windows, its features are great but are not very well exposed in the GUI in my opinion, or the features come short. They need to do better, such as with a MDI GUI window interface mode perhaps, adding more windows, and better exposing all of the features via the GUI so commands are optional, such as a lot more clicky-click and drag and drop sort of things. Ive tried kdevelop before, which lacks much integration with Perl. Indeed, GUI IDEs need much work on *nix, in features also in the area of integration with GUI builders.
Actually, gnome is pretty worthless to me. Although it may be quite useable for people who have the same preferences as its developers who seem to force their way of using it on everyone and do not make it configurable enough, it is worthless for people who want freedom and flexibility to configure it. It seems Gnome forces its idea of what is good UI design on you and thinks arrogantly that its way is the best way and that you must comply with its idea of what is best. Thus it becomes a hindrance to those who do not like its behaviour. One example is gnome toolbar, which I would like to simply be a regular floating window and freely resizable like a regular window, but noooo, there is no way to prevent it from sticking to the screen sides, or even easily drag and resize it. It is utterly wortheless and the most difficult to use software i have seen, in my opinion! The only thing that Gnome software seems to do for me is take up RAM, without doing much useful! People might say then why not use another desktop environment, but it seems almost all are this way, none are sufficiently configurable even compared to Windows, in my opinion! gnome should focus on being state of the art in all areas and providing as much features and functionality as possible, while providing good default layout, but which is completely configurable. I think that removing or keeping the flexibilty and features limited is the wrong way to improve useability, it is best to add features but to have a good layout that for instance, might place advanced features on an advanced screen and more commonly used feature on a the main screen. Often times useability is harmed by not too many features, but bad layout. Removing features is not the answer but simply makes the software unuseable for everyone accept the fraction of users who find the rigid behaviour acceptable.
I happen to agree with Torvalds 100%, I think what has happened to Gnome is simply a disaster. the more they try to "simplify" it, the more unuseable it becomes. I think that the notion that fewer features makes software more useable is a myth. If I cannot configure software to work the way I want it to, and it makes me use it in a clumsy manner in which is not intuitive to me and I cannot change it, the software gets in my way and slows me down, and I will not use it. This is what Gnome does, I cannot make it work in a manner that is useable and convenient for me, so it slows me down and gets in my way, and instead of helping me it is a worthless hindrance to me that gets in my way. Every user has a different and unique work pattern and style of using software, and unique tastes. What seems to be the perfect, most convenient set up for one user may be totally worthless for another. Features that seem "useless" for one user might be indespensable for another. Just because one person finds no use for a feature does not mean it should not be there, there are likely many other users who probably love that feature and use it all the time. It seems Gnome software tends to ram down the Gnome developers idea of what good user interface is down peoples throats by not allowing them to significantly configure the software. One of my biggest complaints is the gnome panel, you would think they would allow something as simply as allowing it to be freely floatable and resizable, but it is extraordinarily difficult to force it to do anything but behave in the rigidly programmed manner that the Gnome developers think is the best. Furthermore, for providing very little functionality and customisabily and being an absurd nuiscance, it manages to consume 30 mb of RAM. Ok, that would fine if the software actually could be configured and had lots of functionality, but it does not. I think most users, even new users, actually want a lot of functionality and features. I think that it is not features that inhibits user friendlineness, but rather it is poor layout. The key is not to provide fewer features but to provide many features, but if there is a concern that putting too many options on a configuration screen for instance, simply put the more commonly used options on the main configuration screen and the more advanced options on an advanced screen. This allows the adavanced users to be able to access the functionality that they need without overwhelming novice users. often, the way people learn software, is they will begin by learning a small subset of features then gradually expand and branch out into more complex features as they become more familiar with the software, the key is to let them do so and allow them to be able to access the full range of advanced functionality so it is there as they learn to use it. User interfaces should allow the user to jump right in and start using the software with as little learning and configuration as possible, but should allow the user to branch out and as they become more familiar with it fine tune and tweak the software to their needs and access its advanced features. Software can be new user friendly and expert friendly at the same time in fact. Software for instance could allow an option that adds all of the expert options to the user interface (an experts mode and a new user mode) for instance. I dont know where this notion that software has to be featureless and so simple only an idiot can use it came from. Even Windows often has more flexibility than Gnome or Firefox. Something is seriously wrong when windows programs provide more functionality and are eisier to use than Gnome programs that provide little functionality and are hard to use. Internet Explorer has far more customisability in my opinion in its configuration than Firefox for instance and I have found it, with its security zones and finer control over the browser to be eisier to use than Firefox. And I think this notion that all programs must have the same colour schemes and look and feel, is also simply absurd. It seems Gnome deve
I think the notion of prosecuting the sharing of lyrics is quite ridiculous and actually could be harmful to the record labels. Often if I hear a song, I will attempt to find the name of the song by typing the lyrics into Google and doing a search. In the results several web sites come up with the full song and the author and title of the song. Then I can go purchase the song from itunes or whatever. I will now no longer be able to find the names of the songs that I have heard easily.
I think the music industries attempt to cripple technology is also insane. File sharing and other other innovations should not be hindered for they do have legitimate uses, and people should have the right to make as many copies of something that has legally come into their posession as they wish for their private use.
The music industry is partly itself to blame for the illegal sharing of music online. For years they refused to allow consumers to for a reasonable way purchase and download music online, which is what people wanted. So many resorted to peer to peer networks, which are not specifically designed for illegal sharing and have many legitimate uses. Some are finally starting to wake up and realise that if they provide a reasonably priced service, people will not have as much of an excuse to resort to sharing music, and people will have a legitamate way to download music without infringing.
----- Stop male and female genital mutilation of children and unconsenting persons -- http://mgmbill.org/faq.htm
I agree that HTML is actually a pretty good language and easy to learn. I believe that the best way as well, to improve the capabilities of web browsers to display precisely defined look and feel is to use DOM, CSS, SVG, and so forth alongside HTML. CSS and DOM are great since they allow precise positioning controls of HTML elements, and thus pages can be written in HTML, but the HTML objects be precisely defined by javascript and CSS. SVG can also be made to be displayed in the same document as HTML, CSS, and JS. The HTML can be made to still be viewable in older web browsers. Also I think that "cleaning up" HTML will probably just make it more difficult to use, if it removed functionality, since this seems like it will leave web authors with less flexibility and freedom as to which constructs are best for a certian applications, ruin backwards compatability with older web sites, and perhaps cause incompatability with older web browsers.
A great myth is that software can only be used by one category of users. This is nonsense. An OS both can be newbie friendly but also expert friendly too. Many open source projects have for instance very sparse configuration screens, Firefox being one of them. It seems they think that they have to make the configuration windows simple so that it does not confuse users. Instead of removing features from these screens, it would simply be a better idea to move the hundreds of advanced settings onto an advanced screen, which advanced users can click on but then which will not confuse newbie users. Also, another example would be configuration files and command line utilities. Command line utilties and configuration files are some of the expert users best friends. But just because they are provided does not mean all users have to use them. For instance, a GUI front end can be provided that modifies the configuration files for the user and all the user has to do is use a nice GUI configuration screen. We can produce GUI equivalents to command line programs such as cp and mv, such as clicking and dragging files between windows and copy dialogues. The command line tools and configuration files are still there and the expert users can delve into them to their content, but also the newbie users have their friendly GUIs. This is providing the full spectrum of features, and building systems in layers, the lower layers are more expert friendly and accessible to those who want them, while the higher layers are what the newbie users may use.
Lately, I have also noticed that many open source developers seem to be spending a lot of time on coordinating colour schemes, while indeed, few new features are being added to the software. They seem to want to decide what "look and feel" they are going to force on everyone rather than making the software configurable enough so users can define it themselves exactly as they want it. They forget that the software should be flexible and be configured in every detial to how the user wants to use it. Most open source software rams down a few peoples ideas of what is good GUI design on everyone and the software is pathetically unconfigurable. For instance, Gnome, is one of the worst. Why cant I seem to easily move and resize the gnome panel by dragging it? Why cant I float it, very little is configurable. Contrary as well to popular notions, I think newbie users do want a lot of features and configuration settings. What is important is how the configuration screens are laid out, not making sure there are few settings on them thus making the software unconfigurable. Agian the most commonly used settings can be put on the main screen and a dvanced settings can be placed on an advanced screen or tab.
I thought the BOINC client was a useability disaster when I tried it. It had numerous technical problems and was very unintiutive. While some may say that people should how to work with its unnecessarily involved configuration, I think this is is an arrogant assumption, especially for people who are DONATING their computers resources, if it isnt easy to install and provide some good graphics to show what it is doing, people will not bother and will give up, and the project will use a lot of users. The reason seti@home was such a success, was due to the fact it didnt require much user configuration to run (but was still configurable) and provide a nice graphics display to show that it was doing something. With BOINC the graphics display seemed to be difficult to access, and the whole thing seemed to involve a lot of configuration to use. I think the seti@home project will lose a large number of users from this.
Slashdot Mirror
They actually have released several versions over the past few years. Although, recently, they have been a bit slow to realese new versions, over the past year or so. FreeDOS is functional and can be used to do things including run many older DOS titles. I think they have been saving the 1.0 version for a point where they have obtained a very high level of compatability with MS-DOS.
I have used FreeDOS to run several programs, and it is useable for many tasks, although it still does have some way to go before it is a perfect imitation. Nevertheless, I am glad to see it is still progressing, since I do think there is a use for this kind of thing.
I have used FreeDOS previously and indeed it has quite a bit of importance and valuable to use, both as an OS for older hardware, and as well, for running old DOS software games on newer hardware. I have run FreeDOS on Bochs for nostgalgia's sake, to run various old DOS titles. A fully MS-DOS compatable OS does indeed have many applications, such as running older software, nostgalgia, preservation of old computer operating systems, and for older hardware and modern hardware for which a small, lightweight OS is needed.
I dont think using radio signals, instead of wires is really going to help your privacy much. How is transmitting something over the air where anyone can recieve it better than sending it over wires, which someone has to tap into physically?
If you really want privacy, what you want is some really strong, good encryption. I would, if you are paranoid, encrypt your messages many times each time with a different key.
People often claim wireless is the solution to everything. It definitely is not. RF spectrum is very dear and limited, and there are often quite a few fights over who will get to use which bands. Its not an unlimited resource. Fiber optics can deliver far greater data capacity than wireless ever will.
I agree completely. This whole thing about these dress codes is about taking away peoples individuality, and as well, allowing corporations to control and dictate to people on even minor things that are completely irrelevant to the job at hand. What does suits and ties have to do with good programming? Absolutely nothing. In fact, I would say that if I am wearing something comfortable I am much more likely to produce better code than if I am wearing uncomfortable business clothing.
It seems corporations want to turn people into mindless robots who are carbon copies of the model that they are expected to conform to, rather than unique individuals.
I think, employees should form unions and demand that these corporations loosen up the dress code and even allow employees to work from home (hey, its good for profits and productivity. By people working in their own homes, the company could save loads of money on office space, and if people are working at home, they are much less likely to pick up the flu bug and so on at the office. There really is not excuse since with video conferencing with whiteboards, and the internet the employees could all still interact in much the same way they did in the office).
Doesn't Linux have some kind of a driver API to support cameras? Does Gphoto2 contain camera support or use external drivers via an API. Building in support rather than keeping the driver and app seperate is a bad idea since it makes it more difficult to use other apps with the camera.
I think another interesting concept was IPv7 proposals. These put some additional address fields into some unused space in the IPv4 headers, if memory serves me. Each IPv4 address would basically contain a massive address space then.
The IPv4 routers would just send all of the packets right through, ignoring the additional fields. This basically allows a new address space to be layered on top of IPv4, although, it does require hosts to have upgraded software to understand the new fields.
Perhaps I did not explain clearly enough. If we have an IPv4 host on an IPv4 network, that wants to connect to say, awebsite.com. However, awebsite.com has an IPv6 address. The host would send a DNS request to its DNS server, the DNS server instead of replying with the IPv6 address, it will provide a temporary IPv4 private address (using an address block set aside for IPv4->IPv6 routing purposes perhaps) back. The IPv4 requesting host will be using a gateway server that is working in concert with the DNS server. The DNS server will tell the gateway that all connections to the temporary IPv4 address it gave to the client should be redirected to the IPv6 address for awebsite.com. The gateway/router would redirect the connection as such. This may not be a perfect solution. I do not claim to be an expert, but rather am thinking about possible solutions.
I believe that the design of IPv6 was flawed in ways that it has inhibited adoption which could have been much more rapid. The IPv4 address space should have been a subset of the IPv6 address space. This would allow easy interconnectivity to Ipv4. The other direction, for going from Ipv4 to Ipv6 is trickier, but could involve manipulation of DNS. When a ipv4 peer requests a IP for a DNS address, the DNS server will reply with a private IPv4 address, the router/gateway associated with the DNS server will catch the connection to this IP and reroute the connection to the proper IPv6 address. It does only work with DNS addresses, yes. A special block of Ipv4 addresses should have been set aside for this purpose exclusively. Problem solved. Most people use DNS anyway. Other solutions could be devised to access a ipv6 address without DNS from ipv4, a protocol that would allow users to configure a forwarding route on the router via some utility, so that all connections to a private IP are rerouted to a specified IPv6 address. This could have eventually been built right into clients as well. This would have allowed a gradual switchover. The problem with the current switchover plan is that since there are so few Ipv6 users, there is not much incentive for websites to make themselves accessible on ipv6, but at the same time, users see no benefit from moving to ipv6, since there are not many websites avialable from it. So in order to access the internet, people need two seperate Ip configurations, people are not going to bother with ipv6 since it is pointless to them, all of the websites are on ipv4. Thus we get nowhere. It is absolutely true that there must be a gradual transition period where both protocols will be used and where both protocols must be interoperable.
I disagree. I believe that free speech is a basic HUMAN right, and that it is a right that should be available to all humans by birth. It is an inalienable right, and it is one that no government has a right to abridge or restrict. China has no right to make rules that violate such a human right.
No, try @array=([1, 2], [3, 4], 5, [6, 7, 8]);
That should work. see, you can do it in Perl too. The [] when used in such a way create array references. An array with embedded arrays is an array with array references in it. The embedded arrays are embedded as array references. Perl does flatten the structure if you use () enclosures exclusively, so thats why you use [] (or {} for hashes) for the embedded structures.
I agree, Linux allows you to run as much or as little as you need, while Windows makes you run the whole thing, GUI and all, whether you need it or not. FVWM2 would also work quite well on a 486 by the way. The 486 would even run much faster than Windows and use less memory on Linux without even having a GUI loaded at all. It is this kind of modularity that is so important. This is why the design of X was so intelligent, keeping the window manager and desktop environment, widgets, etc, out of the server allows the user to run as little as they need, or as much as they need. A user does not have to use large amounts of RAM on a big window manager when all they need is something basic. People can choose the window manager they need, and there is a vast array from ones that take a few kb, to dozens of mb with all the bells and whistles.
Fifth Element and Robocop arent "modern"? The contributor must not realise that the history of film entertainment does extend beyond the 1980s. Metropolis, Wizard of Oz, etc, those are considered classics.
Of course faster broadband is important and would be quite useable. I suppose the only thing that these people assume people will want to use is static web pages. This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Video content, especially HD will require massive bandwidth, as well as realisitc 3D multi player games. These people have got to be kidding themselves..
These arguments are similar to the ridicluous and absurd "why would anyone need a faster computer" argument. People assume that all people will want to do is use a word processor, and ignore gaming, especially CPU intensive HD video and editing and 3D rendering which is currently held back by CPU and storage limitations, and so on. I think, if we increase the CPU speeds and transfer speeds, new technologies will be developed to utilise them. These people have no imagination it seems.
I disagree completely. With high speed internet connections becoming so common today, this isnt nearly as much of a problem than it was before. Even at modem speeds, it still isnt a problem, it might take an hour, but the user can do other things while its downloading. Its not like there are not other Windows applications that are this large, they are quite common.
The benefits of GTK, cross platform code, programs that can be easily ported to many OSs, makes having to include the library on windows packages worth it, in my opinion. GTK provides a lot of features that make give an app designer a lot of flexibility, this is well worth the download time.
I have found Perl to the easiest language to both learn and use. Its syntax is logical and not difficult to grasp in my opinion.
As far as being slow, it is probably similar to other VM languages in speed, such as Java or Python. Furthermore, Parrot will provide a JIT/AIT Just in time/ahead of time compiler which allows code to be natively executed on the CPU.
I was disturbed when the original MP3.com went out of business, since it was such a good source of independant, alternative music, and real variety (I like a lot of different genres of music and like to mix it up), and also would burn the songs onto CD and ship them to you and of course you could buy the MP3s. It was very convenient, central, easy source to search and find independant music out there. It was great since I did not have to listen same old dull crap that is put out by the big labels every year.
I hardly ever listen to the radio any longer since it seems they play the same songs over and over again, which are ussually the most irritating and obnoxious ones. If they are not irrating at first, they become so after you have heard them play it 20 times. I therefore never listen to the corporate (clear channel, etc) stations anymore.
There seems much less variety, both in songs and genres on radio today, even compared with 10 or 20 years ago. What music is played on the radio seems even more and more controlled by marketing and management. It is well know that in many cases all DJs do all day is swap the CDs out of the player according to instructions regarding exactly what to play from the marketers and managers. Its probably not about variety and choice and good music, but about what they want people to listen to and buy. And I think people are starting to have enough being fed the same old crap.
I do think the slip in the quality of radio (especially within the last year it seems), also has something to do with the simultaneosly hideous situation with popular music releases, which are massively marketed, tied in with movies and what not, but in my opinion sound little better than fingernails on a blackboard. I think particularly many people unfortunately do listen to the miserable corporate stations, and since most of what is there sounds awful, people are not very convinced to go buy any of it.
I think that a big reason people may not be buying a lot of music is that so much of the popular music today sounds, at least to me, so horrible and unpleasant I cannot stand to listen to it.
Also I think that the styles of music marketed have become much more limited, especially what they play on the radio, and what is being marketed by the major labels. There seems to be much less variety on the radio today than there was 20 years ago.
It seems like all of the good music styles have gone by the wayside and the music industry seems to be rather stagnated, very little variety or quality.
I think one of the greatest advancements I would like to see is GUIs that actually give the end user extremely fine control over it both through GUI and not just code (although the full cofigurability should be avialable via both). It seems few UIs achieve that today and ram what the developers idea of good UI design is down the throats of the users and arrogantly assume that what works best for them works best for everyone. In reality, what may be perfect for one person may be useless for another, and a feature which seems useless to one person may be essential and indespensible to another. I think users should be given complete freedom to completely configure GUI software to their needs, rather than have very rigid behaviours forced upon them by developers who think their way is the only way.
I think we also need more features and functionality, but it should be up to the user to decide for themselves what to use, i think a 3D paradigm would be quite interesting. But of course it should not be rammed down peoples throats. It sometimes offends me how a few seem to take it upon themselves to decide how everyone else has to use their computer.
First, I will say that the notion that Perl is only generally used for small "quick and dirty" programs, or that it is only useful for doing so is atrocious. I have used Perl to write programs that have 10,000+ lines and greater. There really is not much preventing the language being used in such a way, it provides a good environment with needed tools to make it easy. Perl also does not encourage unreadable code, I have found it just as easy to write good code in Perl than other languages.
As far as IDEs, I really cant stand to use emacs or vi, i prefer things like floating windows, its features are great but are not very well exposed in the GUI in my opinion, or the features come short. They need to do better, such as with a MDI GUI window interface mode perhaps, adding more windows, and better exposing all of the features via the GUI so commands are optional, such as a lot more clicky-click and drag and drop sort of things. Ive tried kdevelop before, which lacks much integration with Perl. Indeed, GUI IDEs need much work on *nix, in features also in the area of integration with GUI builders.
Actually, gnome is pretty worthless to me. Although it may be quite useable for people who have the same preferences as its developers who seem to force their way of using it on everyone and do not make it configurable enough, it is worthless for people who want freedom and flexibility to configure it. It seems Gnome forces its idea of what is good UI design on you and thinks arrogantly that its way is the best way and that you must comply with its idea of what is best. Thus it becomes a hindrance to those who do not like its behaviour. One example is gnome toolbar, which I would like to simply be a regular floating window and freely resizable like a regular window, but noooo, there is no way to prevent it from sticking to the screen sides, or even easily drag and resize it. It is utterly wortheless and the most difficult to use software i have seen, in my opinion! The only thing that Gnome software seems to do for me is take up RAM, without doing much useful! People might say then why not use another desktop environment, but it seems almost all are this way, none are sufficiently configurable even compared to Windows, in my opinion! gnome should focus on being state of the art in all areas and providing as much features and functionality as possible, while providing good default layout, but which is completely configurable. I think that removing or keeping the flexibilty and features limited is the wrong way to improve useability, it is best to add features but to have a good layout that for instance, might place advanced features on an advanced screen and more commonly used feature on a the main screen. Often times useability is harmed by not too many features, but bad layout. Removing features is not the answer but simply makes the software unuseable for everyone accept the fraction of users who find the rigid behaviour acceptable.
I happen to agree with Torvalds 100%, I think what has happened to Gnome is simply a disaster. the more they try to "simplify" it, the more unuseable it becomes. I think that the notion that fewer features makes software more useable is a myth. If I cannot configure software to work the way I want it to, and it makes me use it in a clumsy manner in which is not intuitive to me and I cannot change it, the software gets in my way and slows me down, and I will not use it. This is what Gnome does, I cannot make it work in a manner that is useable and convenient for me, so it slows me down and gets in my way, and instead of helping me it is a worthless hindrance to me that gets in my way. Every user has a different and unique work pattern and style of using software, and unique tastes. What seems to be the perfect, most convenient set up for one user may be totally worthless for another. Features that seem "useless" for one user might be indespensable for another. Just because one person finds no use for a feature does not mean it should not be there, there are likely many other users who probably love that feature and use it all the time. It seems Gnome software tends to ram down the Gnome developers idea of what good user interface is down peoples throats by not allowing them to significantly configure the software. One of my biggest complaints is the gnome panel, you would think they would allow something as simply as allowing it to be freely floatable and resizable, but it is extraordinarily difficult to force it to do anything but behave in the rigidly programmed manner that the Gnome developers think is the best. Furthermore, for providing very little functionality and customisabily and being an absurd nuiscance, it manages to consume 30 mb of RAM. Ok, that would fine if the software actually could be configured and had lots of functionality, but it does not. I think most users, even new users, actually want a lot of functionality and features. I think that it is not features that inhibits user friendlineness, but rather it is poor layout. The key is not to provide fewer features but to provide many features, but if there is a concern that putting too many options on a configuration screen for instance, simply put the more commonly used options on the main configuration screen and the more advanced options on an advanced screen. This allows the adavanced users to be able to access the functionality that they need without overwhelming novice users. often, the way people learn software, is they will begin by learning a small subset of features then gradually expand and branch out into more complex features as they become more familiar with the software, the key is to let them do so and allow them to be able to access the full range of advanced functionality so it is there as they learn to use it. User interfaces should allow the user to jump right in and start using the software with as little learning and configuration as possible, but should allow the user to branch out and as they become more familiar with it fine tune and tweak the software to their needs and access its advanced features. Software can be new user friendly and expert friendly at the same time in fact. Software for instance could allow an option that adds all of the expert options to the user interface (an experts mode and a new user mode) for instance. I dont know where this notion that software has to be featureless and so simple only an idiot can use it came from. Even Windows often has more flexibility than Gnome or Firefox. Something is seriously wrong when windows programs provide more functionality and are eisier to use than Gnome programs that provide little functionality and are hard to use. Internet Explorer has far more customisability in my opinion in its configuration than Firefox for instance and I have found it, with its security zones and finer control over the browser to be eisier to use than Firefox. And I think this notion that all programs must have the same colour schemes and look and feel, is also simply absurd. It seems Gnome deve
I think the notion of prosecuting the sharing of lyrics is quite ridiculous and actually could be harmful to the record labels. Often if I hear a song, I will attempt to find the name of the song by typing the lyrics into Google and doing a search. In the results several web sites come up with the full song and the author and title of the song. Then I can go purchase the song from itunes or whatever. I will now no longer be able to find the names of the songs that I have heard easily.
I think the music industries attempt to cripple technology is also insane. File sharing and other other innovations should not be hindered for they do have legitimate uses, and people should have the right to make as many copies of something that has legally come into their posession as they wish for their private use.
The music industry is partly itself to blame for the illegal sharing of music online. For years they refused to allow consumers to for a reasonable way purchase and download music online, which is what people wanted. So many resorted to peer to peer networks, which are not specifically designed for illegal sharing and have many legitimate uses. Some are finally starting to wake up and realise that if they provide a reasonably priced service, people will not have as much of an excuse to resort to sharing music, and people will have a legitamate way to download music without infringing.
-----
Stop male and female genital mutilation of children and unconsenting persons --
http://mgmbill.org/faq.htm
I agree that HTML is actually a pretty good language and easy to learn. I believe that the best way as well, to improve the capabilities of web browsers to display precisely defined look and feel is to use DOM, CSS, SVG, and so forth alongside HTML. CSS and DOM are great since they allow precise positioning controls of HTML elements, and thus pages can be written in HTML, but the HTML objects be precisely defined by javascript and CSS. SVG can also be made to be displayed in the same document as HTML, CSS, and JS. The HTML can be made to still be viewable in older web browsers. Also I think that "cleaning up" HTML will probably just make it more difficult to use, if it removed functionality, since this seems like it will leave web authors with less flexibility and freedom as to which constructs are best for a certian applications, ruin backwards compatability with older web sites, and perhaps cause incompatability with older web browsers.
A great myth is that software can only be used by one category of users. This is nonsense. An OS both can be newbie friendly but also expert friendly too. Many open source projects have for instance very sparse configuration screens, Firefox being one of them. It seems they think that they have to make the configuration windows simple so that it does not confuse users. Instead of removing features from these screens, it would simply be a better idea to move the hundreds of advanced settings onto an advanced screen, which advanced users can click on but then which will not confuse newbie users. Also, another example would be configuration files and command line utilities. Command line utilties and configuration files are some of the expert users best friends. But just because they are provided does not mean all users have to use them. For instance, a GUI front end can be provided that modifies the configuration files for the user and all the user has to do is use a nice GUI configuration screen. We can produce GUI equivalents to command line programs such as cp and mv, such as clicking and dragging files between windows and copy dialogues. The command line tools and configuration files are still there and the expert users can delve into them to their content, but also the newbie users have their friendly GUIs. This is providing the full spectrum of features, and building systems in layers, the lower layers are more expert friendly and accessible to those who want them, while the higher layers are what the newbie users may use.
Lately, I have also noticed that many open source developers seem to be spending a lot of time on coordinating colour schemes, while indeed, few new features are being added to the software. They seem to want to decide what "look and feel" they are going to force on everyone rather than making the software configurable enough so users can define it themselves exactly as they want it. They forget that the software should be flexible and be configured in every detial to how the user wants to use it. Most open source software rams down a few peoples ideas of what is good GUI design on everyone and the software is pathetically unconfigurable. For instance, Gnome, is one of the worst. Why cant I seem to easily move and resize the gnome panel by dragging it? Why cant I float it, very little is configurable. Contrary as well to popular notions, I think newbie users do want a lot of features and configuration settings. What is important is how the configuration screens are laid out, not making sure there are few settings on them thus making the software unconfigurable. Agian the most commonly used settings can be put on the main screen and a dvanced settings can be placed on an advanced screen or tab.
I thought the BOINC client was a useability disaster when I tried it. It had numerous technical problems and was very unintiutive. While some may say that people should how to work with its unnecessarily involved configuration, I think this is is an arrogant assumption, especially for people who are DONATING their computers resources, if it isnt easy to install and provide some good graphics to show what it is doing, people will not bother and will give up, and the project will use a lot of users. The reason seti@home was such a success, was due to the fact it didnt require much user configuration to run (but was still configurable) and provide a nice graphics display to show that it was doing something. With BOINC the graphics display seemed to be difficult to access, and the whole thing seemed to involve a lot of configuration to use. I think the seti@home project will lose a large number of users from this.