Re:Is Windowmaker dead? (No, I'm not a troll.)
on
10 Years of OpenStep
·
· Score: 1
Ah, good to hear. Thanks.
Is Windowmaker dead? (No, I'm not a troll.)
on
10 Years of OpenStep
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The website hasn't been updated since February, I've gotten no CVS updates since July, there's been no official releases since 0.80.2, there's no working mailing list archives on the site, and my emails go unanswered.
I'm seriously interested in knowing. I'm a big Windowmaker fan, but I'm worried about its' apparent lack of development. Does anyone, anyone at all, know what the heck is going on?
Note that I doubt we're talking about a complete "wiping" of Gnome-related libraries entirely from Slackware, either. I imagine glib and gtk+ would remain, for example, since those two libraries are used in many places independent of Gnome. Presumably atk, pango, and a few others would similarly be preserved for the same reason.
Almost certainly, yes. All of atk, pango, gtk+, and glib are in the L series, and last I checked they don't depend on any libraries other than themselves. They're quite easy to build, and keeping them means that most of the good, simple-to-build, non-Gnome GTK apps (Pan, Sylpheed, Gaim, Gimp, XMMS, XScreensaver, the XFCE desktop, etc.) would also stay.
the only issues are gconf schemas and scrollkeeper docs, and those are easy to handle.
Please, for the sake of all that's holy, tell me how this would be easy to handle. I've torn my hair out when building and trying to make my own Slackware packages for 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6, and I always run into problems with those miserable schemas and scrollkeeper.
If it's so easy, please tell me how. I honestly, seriously want to know.
The logic, if you had read the article, is that Gnome is a nightmare to package, especially if you happen to be the sole maintainer of an entire distribution.
Have you ever personally built Gnome 2.x from source tarballs without problems? Have you ever successfully changed the target install directory, so that making a package (tarball, rpm, whatever) is easy? And that's not even counting the new libraries popping up all the time, often with undocumented dependencies. And then there's miserable pages like this, which have the basic list of dependencies, but only provide links for 3 of them.
By comparison, KDE is simple to build. It's just a dozen or so source tarballs, all of which do the "./configure ; make ; make prefix=/temp/package_to_be_tarballed install" thing quite easily, without major dependency issues. X.org or XFree86, QT, and a recent XML2 library are all that's needed, last I checked.
Slackware dropping Gnome has very little to do with how the two desktops compare when being used, and everything to do with how they compare when building from source. If this alleged email from Patrick is true, then it just means that he's sick and tired of Gnome's chaotic, maintenance-intensive mess of libraries. I don't blame the guy.
Sorry, I'll have to correct you on this. It should be: hypertext transfer protocol://world wide web.computer science.university of virginia.educational institution/acronyms-are-good.hypertext markup language
Why? Just because some people insist on crippling themselves with joysticks in an FPS, I should have to suffer?
The entire reason I don't play console FPS games is because of that braindead, ridiculous, two-little-joysticks-and-a-couple-of-buttons control setup. Now I might actually bother to play Halo and all those others. And I know for damn sure that there's lots of people like me out there.
If you can write a program that an average PC is fast enough to run that can do real-time video analysis, then you not only deserve to win the game, but you'd deserve a Nobel prize.
Of course NASA didn't perform any of the fundamental research that lead to the first unmanned flights, so his efforts are piggy-backing on those of Germany and Von Braun.
I'm coming at it from the other way. I have an old-style GBA, the one without the backlit screen. I've been avoiding getting an SP in case the DS comes in at a reasonable price. I'm glad I waited, I think I will be getting one.
I for one am glad that B5 turned out the way it did (seasons 1 through 4, anyway); Sinclair's actor was painfully wooden. Bruce Boxleitner's Sheridan was much more fun to watch. I cheered when Sinclair went back a thousand years into the past; it meant that he would probably never again make cameos in the show.
And as it happens, one of the rumours flying around is that JMS himself is the guy in charge of this SW TV show. If anyone can pull it off, he and the writers from B5 can.
Seriously, this is verging on medium format digital back territory. The resolution may not be quite as high, but it costs vastly less than an average digital back, and is much more portable.
Yeah, tell me about it. I get those comments all the time. At work, sure, the pre-press stuff is important before printing on expensive 42" wide canvas, but at home I just do personal stuff on my HP Photosmart. The Gimp's good enough for my own needs.
Amen to that. At the risk of sounding like an elitist asshole, it's obvious that a good many folks on Slashdot don't know much about photography, and think that just because they bought Sony's newest fucking Cybershot that they're the next Helmut Newton.
As for myself, I've been eagerly waiting for an influential company to propose something like this; I work in a pro lab, and having to master and keep up to date on a dozen different raw converters is very stressful. A single standardized open format that I can use right inside Photoshop (at work) or the Gimp (at home) is like the holy grail to me!
It would be interesting if this could somehow be adapted to 35mm or medium format negative scanners, too. Being able to do big corrections after the scan would save me a hell of a lot of time.
Yeah, good points. The lack of full sensor coverage might not be a problem if the area covered has enough pixels, though. All depends on the specific back used. The focus problem would be a lot more difficult to overcome, though. It's a pity that Silicon Film's vaporware digital sensor never made it to market; it would be the perfect way to retrofit all kinds of manual SLRs.
And the A75 is a great little camera for the price, as long as you stay with its' ISO50 or 100 settings. The noise is very noticeable at 200 and 400.
One solution that comes to mind is to make some kind of adaptor to fit FD lenses on a medium format body, and use a medium format digital back. The FD mount is fairly small, and a good many medium format lens mounts are quite large, so there shouldn't be any problems machining an adaptor ring that allows focusing to infinity.
Of course, a quality digital back can be fairly pricey.
After all, the money that NASA spends doesn't go to paycheques for highly-educated engineers, scientists, and technicians. The real secret is that rocket fuel is 100% cash! All the money spent on space development is lost forever and wasted!
Isn't this what Portal of Evil does every day?
on
Internet Babylon
·
· Score: 1
Amen to that. I started using KDE for the sole reason that installing Gnome from source is a collosal nightmare, often involving a chase through archive.org for obscure libraries.
Would it be too much of a bother for the ftp.gnome.org maintainers to keep a directory with source tarballs for all the required dependencies? The developers must have them somewhere, otherwise how could they compile in the first place?
Also, an updated list of the exact order of compilation would be a big help; I get really tired of looking for such a list each time I try out a new Gnome release, only to end up with links to the 1.4 release notes.
My guess would be that there are no safe ways of leaving it with the telescope. I'm just guessing here, all I know about orbital mechanics I learned from watching "Planetes".
I doubt it could be attached to the telescope, as that would add a significant off-center weight that the attitude control system might not be able to handle. And that's assuming that there are any strong enough points to physically hook up to, anyway.
A tether would be a nightmare during telescope maneuvers, as the robot would need to move with inhuman, zero-lag-time precision to avoid smashing into the telescope. It would also need to carry a lot of fuel for those maneuvers. Same goes for leaving the robot untethered but close by.
If left far away from the telescope, the orbits of the robot and telescope would probably drift so far apart as to make the whole idea pointless.
Like I said, I'm no engineer. But those are my guesses.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, good to hear. Thanks.
The website hasn't been updated since February, I've gotten no CVS updates since July, there's been no official releases since 0.80.2, there's no working mailing list archives on the site, and my emails go unanswered.
I'm seriously interested in knowing. I'm a big Windowmaker fan, but I'm worried about its' apparent lack of development. Does anyone, anyone at all, know what the heck is going on?
What I wouldn't give for mod points right now. Well said, good sir.
Note that I doubt we're talking about a complete "wiping" of Gnome-related libraries entirely from Slackware, either. I imagine glib and gtk+ would remain, for example, since those two libraries are used in many places independent of Gnome. Presumably atk, pango, and a few others would similarly be preserved for the same reason.
Almost certainly, yes. All of atk, pango, gtk+, and glib are in the L series, and last I checked they don't depend on any libraries other than themselves. They're quite easy to build, and keeping them means that most of the good, simple-to-build, non-Gnome GTK apps (Pan, Sylpheed, Gaim, Gimp, XMMS, XScreensaver, the XFCE desktop, etc.) would also stay.
the only issues are gconf schemas and scrollkeeper docs, and those are easy to handle.
Please, for the sake of all that's holy, tell me how this would be easy to handle. I've torn my hair out when building and trying to make my own Slackware packages for 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6, and I always run into problems with those miserable schemas and scrollkeeper.
If it's so easy, please tell me how. I honestly, seriously want to know.
The logic, if you had read the article, is that Gnome is a nightmare to package, especially if you happen to be the sole maintainer of an entire distribution.
Have you ever personally built Gnome 2.x from source tarballs without problems? Have you ever successfully changed the target install directory, so that making a package (tarball, rpm, whatever) is easy? And that's not even counting the new libraries popping up all the time, often with undocumented dependencies. And then there's miserable pages like this, which have the basic list of dependencies, but only provide links for 3 of them.
By comparison, KDE is simple to build. It's just a dozen or so source tarballs, all of which do the "./configure ; make ; make prefix=/temp/package_to_be_tarballed install" thing quite easily, without major dependency issues. X.org or XFree86, QT, and a recent XML2 library are all that's needed, last I checked.
Slackware dropping Gnome has very little to do with how the two desktops compare when being used, and everything to do with how they compare when building from source. If this alleged email from Patrick is true, then it just means that he's sick and tired of Gnome's chaotic, maintenance-intensive mess of libraries. I don't blame the guy.
Sorry, I'll have to correct you on this. It should be: hypertext transfer protocol://world wide web.computer science.university of virginia.educational institution/acronyms-are-good.hypertext markup language
There you go.
Why? Just because some people insist on crippling themselves with joysticks in an FPS, I should have to suffer?
The entire reason I don't play console FPS games is because of that braindead, ridiculous, two-little-joysticks-and-a-couple-of-buttons control setup. Now I might actually bother to play Halo and all those others. And I know for damn sure that there's lots of people like me out there.
If you can write a program that an average PC is fast enough to run that can do real-time video analysis, then you not only deserve to win the game, but you'd deserve a Nobel prize.
Of course NASA didn't perform any of the fundamental research that lead to the first unmanned flights, so his efforts are piggy-backing on those of Germany and Von Braun.
There we go, all fixed. You're welcome.
I'm coming at it from the other way. I have an old-style GBA, the one without the backlit screen. I've been avoiding getting an SP in case the DS comes in at a reasonable price. I'm glad I waited, I think I will be getting one.
Everyone knows that they'll be competing for the smooth taste of Colt 45.
I for one am glad that B5 turned out the way it did (seasons 1 through 4, anyway); Sinclair's actor was painfully wooden. Bruce Boxleitner's Sheridan was much more fun to watch. I cheered when Sinclair went back a thousand years into the past; it meant that he would probably never again make cameos in the show.
And as it happens, one of the rumours flying around is that JMS himself is the guy in charge of this SW TV show. If anyone can pull it off, he and the writers from B5 can.
Seriously, this is verging on medium format digital back territory. The resolution may not be quite as high, but it costs vastly less than an average digital back, and is much more portable.
Yeah, tell me about it. I get those comments all the time. At work, sure, the pre-press stuff is important before printing on expensive 42" wide canvas, but at home I just do personal stuff on my HP Photosmart. The Gimp's good enough for my own needs.
Amen to that. At the risk of sounding like an elitist asshole, it's obvious that a good many folks on Slashdot don't know much about photography, and think that just because they bought Sony's newest fucking Cybershot that they're the next Helmut Newton.
As for myself, I've been eagerly waiting for an influential company to propose something like this; I work in a pro lab, and having to master and keep up to date on a dozen different raw converters is very stressful. A single standardized open format that I can use right inside Photoshop (at work) or the Gimp (at home) is like the holy grail to me!
It would be interesting if this could somehow be adapted to 35mm or medium format negative scanners, too. Being able to do big corrections after the scan would save me a hell of a lot of time.
Yeah, good points. The lack of full sensor coverage might not be a problem if the area covered has enough pixels, though. All depends on the specific back used. The focus problem would be a lot more difficult to overcome, though. It's a pity that Silicon Film's vaporware digital sensor never made it to market; it would be the perfect way to retrofit all kinds of manual SLRs.
And the A75 is a great little camera for the price, as long as you stay with its' ISO50 or 100 settings. The noise is very noticeable at 200 and 400.
One solution that comes to mind is to make some kind of adaptor to fit FD lenses on a medium format body, and use a medium format digital back. The FD mount is fairly small, and a good many medium format lens mounts are quite large, so there shouldn't be any problems machining an adaptor ring that allows focusing to infinity.
Of course, a quality digital back can be fairly pricey.
After all, the money that NASA spends doesn't go to paycheques for highly-educated engineers, scientists, and technicians. The real secret is that rocket fuel is 100% cash! All the money spent on space development is lost forever and wasted!
Portal of Evil. I highly recommend checking out random linked sites, too.
Amen to that. I started using KDE for the sole reason that installing Gnome from source is a collosal nightmare, often involving a chase through archive.org for obscure libraries.
Would it be too much of a bother for the ftp.gnome.org maintainers to keep a directory with source tarballs for all the required dependencies? The developers must have them somewhere, otherwise how could they compile in the first place?
Also, an updated list of the exact order of compilation would be a big help; I get really tired of looking for such a list each time I try out a new Gnome release, only to end up with links to the 1.4 release notes.
Rules change based on common usage. Get over it.
Shouldn't that be Kernel Torvalds?
[...]my slashdot ID's looking rather low these days though 4 digits would have been nice.
Oh, it is. I may not have informative or funny posts, but I'll damn well pass for an old-timer, dagnabbit.
My guess would be that there are no safe ways of leaving it with the telescope. I'm just guessing here, all I know about orbital mechanics I learned from watching "Planetes".
I doubt it could be attached to the telescope, as that would add a significant off-center weight that the attitude control system might not be able to handle. And that's assuming that there are any strong enough points to physically hook up to, anyway.
A tether would be a nightmare during telescope maneuvers, as the robot would need to move with inhuman, zero-lag-time precision to avoid smashing into the telescope. It would also need to carry a lot of fuel for those maneuvers. Same goes for leaving the robot untethered but close by.
If left far away from the telescope, the orbits of the robot and telescope would probably drift so far apart as to make the whole idea pointless.
Like I said, I'm no engineer. But those are my guesses.