From my (limited) knowledge of german I'd say it was soo-suh.
This is how I heard it was pronounced, as well. And how I continue to pronounce it.
I'm pretty psyc'd about this; I like suse, it's the only distro that I've used that worked as it was supposed to. I've been thinking about installing it on my antiquated G3 powerbook; I boot back and forth between OS 9 and OS X too much (VPC is too painful to use under OS X on my old hardware), and am seriously looking at Linux with MacOnLinux.
In the Finder, do a good old Find with command-f, but change the search criteria to just Date Created, then do a search and look for anything suspicious. Then do another search, this time searching for Date Modified.
The problem with this is that OS X has many hidden folders, into which the Finder does not look. These folders include UNIX standards such as bin, sbin, usr and private. Better to use 'find' via the Terminal. 'man find' in a Terminal window for further info.
i like (as does my company) the idea of only writing code once, and being able to install it on our (mixed-OS) desktops...
Isn't that called Java?
...and also letting external parties use it without having to install as much (installing a browser plug-in is fairly unobtrusive compared to installing a stand-alone app).
Isn't that called JavaScript?
And wouldn't you still have to install a stand-alone app to run inside the OS that's running inside the browser?
In an average project, most objects and methods are still damn far from being prime.
Tell me about it. I'm a self-taught amateur who's trying to write a fairly complicated piece of software, and I can tell you that my code is far from being 'prime'. Lots of stuff that would be better as templates, or just resolving a pointer and passing it as a ref to an equivalent function ( i.e. operator=(myObject&) and operator=(myObject*) ) instead of rewriting what amounts to the same function only with a pointer instead of a ref. So here's a question: what's the difference between general optimizations and refactoring? Or is there?
And I'm telling you that you could get a waveform that looked totally different and yet sounded exactly the same. In that case the "actual waveform" would *not* be "more informative than just listening".
What one hears is subjective. A waveform is not. The question is whether the waveform degrades, not can a difference be heard. That question might arise in the context of how many times can you rip/burn/rip before it's noticeable, but that ain't my question. And yes, a waveform that had degraded but sounded no different most certainly is informative. It's told me something that I wouldn't otherwise have known - that the waveform has degraded, and that ripping/burning/ripping to the same codec/bitrate causes further loss of sound quality, and isn't necessarily a good work-around for DRM. Which is my primary reason for asking this.
It's not a very useful test - the human ear is absolutely crap at detecting absolute phase information, so lossy encoders often just discard it. This can lead to waveforms that look totally different and yet are completely indistinguishable to the human ear.
But the point of the test would be to observe the amount of degradation that occurs by burning and re-ripping to the same codec and bitrate. The actual waverform would be a lot more informative than just listening for this purpose.
Thanks for the responses. Here's a follow-up - anyone know of good software for OS X that would allow me to view the analog waveforms of audio files? Seems to me that this would be the definitive test; by comparing 'before' and 'after' waveforms.
I see the desire to give users choice leading to fragmentation. This is quite different from seeing one or the other.
If you're the type who dislikes having many choices that do similar tasks in general and simply want a tool that does the job - maybe Windows or Mac is a better choice for you for now.
The Macintosh platform is my preferred choice. However, this has nothing to do with configurability, and everything to do with ease-of-use. In fact, I take exception to Apple forcing me to use the Aqua interface. Sure, it's pretty to look at, but there are certain aspects about it that drive me nuts. The Dock sucks. Menulettes suck. Why they couldn't just stick the OS 7/8/9 Platinum interface on Unix, like they did with AUX, I'll never know. And there are asects that are inconsistent within the interface itself. It definately needs more work. But if I go sit down at any other Mac with OS X, I'll know how to find my way around and get work done. The same can't necessarily be said of the different Linux desktop environments.
Some linux distro's will always gravitate towards maximum choice (i.e. Gentoo), some will hopefully keep evolving towards the layperson, as you put it, with maximum use right out of the box with minimal configuration. As much flak as they get from the rest of us hardcore geeks, I think Linspire and Xandros will serve their target market well.
I agree. But will someone who just got up from the Xandros desktop be able to sit down at a Linspire desktop and be just as productive? This is what I think should be the goal; unity for the masses, with choice available for those who desire it.
Thanks for the response. It's nice to get a reasoned response to such a hot-button topic.
"Why?" I ask this in all seriousness. It seems to me, an admitted outsider with little Linux exp., that the more I hear the more fragmented it seems. What with this distro and that distro, KDE vs Gnome vs. X11 w/ IceWM or whatever, apt-get vs. portage (I think...) vs. compile-from-source, apparent binary incompatabilities, etc. etc. etc. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for F/OSS in principle. I first tested the Linux waters in '99 with SuSE 6.x; tried installing it on a Compaq 486 box. Never got it to go, but was later successful with a homebuilt K6-2. And it was nice! I got the xserver running, played around with different window managers, became aquinted with the CLI. And it worked better on my sketchy hardware than Win98SE (which had the typical problems) and Mandrake 7.x (which would hang during install while trying to query the PCI bus). However, even now it seems like there is too much choice for the layperson. The average Joe doesn't want to have to mess around with.config files, they want to click 'Yes' or 'No'. I personally don't mind, but I have a geek-ish bent that goes back to high school; ran my own BBS on software that I mostly wrote myself. Until the Linux community comes together and agrees upon a standard interface, be it Gnome, KDE, or whatever for desktop distros, then it isn't going to make it mainstream.
Just as a side note, the same can be said of my Compaq Armada 1750, which despite being pentium 2 has to be the most durable laptop I've ever seen.
Very interesting. I've asked before for examples from the WinTel world of this type of longevity, and I appreciate your response. I imagine you would agree that these older laptops, while not something you want to compile large projects or do vid editing on, have a useful life that is far longer than one might expect.
There is no general answer to that question. It depends on the codec. For MP3, the quality loss was much worse than the expected cumulative degradation, IIRC. Thus, it was far better to reencode with ogg, etc., which would just produce additive loss. By contrast, with ogg, the degradation is supposedly minimal for decoding and reencoding, since almost exactly the same information gets thrown away as in the first pass..
As for whether AAC degrades gracefully under recompression, I'm not sure. Try it and find out. It may also partially depend on the implementation.
Thanks for the response. I think I will try it when I have a little more time. I wonder if anyone has compared analog waveforms of ripped vs. reripped. Time to Google...
No, no, no, the mouseclops is what kept me from buying any Apple product thus far. *shiver*
Um, I'm using a Microsoft Wheel Mouse Optical right now on my PowerBook. Worked right out of the box, no additional software required, unless you want to assign special functions to the buttons/wheel. And then, I recommend spending a couple of bucks on USB Overdrive instead of installing MS drivers.
I'm typing this on a 1998 PowerBook (G3 300) with 10.3.2 installed with a little help from XPostFacto. And OS X has gotten faster with each successive release. Don't let the higher initial cost fool you; PowerBooks maintain their value for a long time. Check eBay and see how much my PB is going for these days; one sold the other day with specs similar to mine for ~$300. Not too bad 6 years later.
And yes, I've said this before. No, I am not a karma whore. Yes, I want to change some perceptions regarding the Macintosh platform.
(I should add that XPostFacto has broken a couple of things,
Slashdot Mirror
This is how I heard it was pronounced, as well. And how I continue to pronounce it.
I'm pretty psyc'd about this; I like suse, it's the only distro that I've used that worked as it was supposed to. I've been thinking about installing it on my antiquated G3 powerbook; I boot back and forth between OS 9 and OS X too much (VPC is too painful to use under OS X on my old hardware), and am seriously looking at Linux with MacOnLinux.
(tig)
Point taken.
(tig)
For me there is. I like to use C++, and do stuff like:I like descriptive names. Just makes it seem more obvious whats going on, at least to me.
(tig)
It's George!
(tig)
The problem with this is that OS X has many hidden folders, into which the Finder does not look. These folders include UNIX standards such as bin, sbin, usr and private. Better to use 'find' via the Terminal. 'man find' in a Terminal window for further info.
(tig)
Isn't that called Java?
Isn't that called JavaScript?
And wouldn't you still have to install a stand-alone app to run inside the OS that's running inside the browser?
(tig)
But I can be reasonably sure that it contains spyware that is sending info back to MS in some fashion.
(tig)
Tell me about it. I'm a self-taught amateur who's trying to write a fairly complicated piece of software, and I can tell you that my code is far from being 'prime'. Lots of stuff that would be better as templates, or just resolving a pointer and passing it as a ref to an equivalent function ( i.e. operator=(myObject&) and operator=(myObject*) ) instead of rewriting what amounts to the same function only with a pointer instead of a ref. So here's a question: what's the difference between general optimizations and refactoring? Or is there?
(tig)
Um, in addition to Windows, it supports:
Linux kernel 2.4 and up
AIX 5 and up
HP-UX 11 and up
IRIX 6.5 and up
Solaris SPARC 7 and up
(tig)
What one hears is subjective. A waveform is not. The question is whether the waveform degrades, not can a difference be heard. That question might arise in the context of how many times can you rip/burn/rip before it's noticeable, but that ain't my question.
And yes, a waveform that had degraded but sounded no different most certainly is informative. It's told me something that I wouldn't otherwise have known - that the waveform has degraded, and that ripping/burning/ripping to the same codec/bitrate causes further loss of sound quality, and isn't necessarily a good work-around for DRM. Which is my primary reason for asking this.
(tig)
But the point of the test would be to observe the amount of degradation that occurs by burning and re-ripping to the same codec and bitrate. The actual waverform would be a lot more informative than just listening for this purpose.
(tig)
Thanks for the responses. Here's a follow-up - anyone know of good software for OS X that would allow me to view the analog waveforms of audio files? Seems to me that this would be the definitive test; by comparing 'before' and 'after' waveforms.
(tig)
I've asked this before (and received a partial answer), but I'll ask it again...
If I burn a lossy codec to cd, then rip it back to it's original format (i.e. 128kbps AAC -> CD -> 128kbps AAC), how much do I lose?
(tig)
I see the desire to give users choice leading to fragmentation. This is quite different from seeing one or the other.
The Macintosh platform is my preferred choice. However, this has nothing to do with configurability, and everything to do with ease-of-use. In fact, I take exception to Apple forcing me to use the Aqua interface. Sure, it's pretty to look at, but there are certain aspects about it that drive me nuts. The Dock sucks. Menulettes suck. Why they couldn't just stick the OS 7/8/9 Platinum interface on Unix, like they did with AUX, I'll never know. And there are asects that are inconsistent within the interface itself. It definately needs more work. But if I go sit down at any other Mac with OS X, I'll know how to find my way around and get work done. The same can't necessarily be said of the different Linux desktop environments.
I agree. But will someone who just got up from the Xandros desktop be able to sit down at a Linspire desktop and be just as productive? This is what I think should be the goal; unity for the masses, with choice available for those who desire it.
Thanks for the response. It's nice to get a reasoned response to such a hot-button topic.
(tig)
"Why?" .config files, they want to click 'Yes' or 'No'. I personally don't mind, but I have a geek-ish bent that goes back to high school; ran my own BBS on software that I mostly wrote myself.
I ask this in all seriousness. It seems to me, an admitted outsider with little Linux exp., that the more I hear the more fragmented it seems. What with this distro and that distro, KDE vs Gnome vs. X11 w/ IceWM or whatever, apt-get vs. portage (I think...) vs. compile-from-source, apparent binary incompatabilities, etc. etc. etc.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for F/OSS in principle. I first tested the Linux waters in '99 with SuSE 6.x; tried installing it on a Compaq 486 box. Never got it to go, but was later successful with a homebuilt K6-2. And it was nice! I got the xserver running, played around with different window managers, became aquinted with the CLI. And it worked better on my sketchy hardware than Win98SE (which had the typical problems) and Mandrake 7.x (which would hang during install while trying to query the PCI bus).
However, even now it seems like there is too much choice for the layperson. The average Joe doesn't want to have to mess around with
Until the Linux community comes together and agrees upon a standard interface, be it Gnome, KDE, or whatever for desktop distros, then it isn't going to make it mainstream.
Let the flaming commence.
(tig)
If you ask me, I think it's the damn bird that's dosed.
(tig)
Like gettin' some strange? =)
(tig)
The part that implies all.
(tig)
Very interesting. I've asked before for examples from the WinTel world of this type of longevity, and I appreciate your response. I imagine you would agree that these older laptops, while not something you want to compile large projects or do vid editing on, have a useful life that is far longer than one might expect.
(tig)
Good point. Consider me chided.
(tig)
Thanks for the response. I think I will try it when I have a little more time. I wonder if anyone has compared analog waveforms of ripped vs. reripped. Time to Google...
(tig)
Um, I'm using a Microsoft Wheel Mouse Optical right now on my PowerBook. Worked right out of the box, no additional software required, unless you want to assign special functions to the buttons/wheel. And then, I recommend spending a couple of bucks on USB Overdrive instead of installing MS drivers.
(tig)
Not as much as having to look down at the keyboard when I type. I'm glad I'm not as inept as you are. That must really suck.
(tig)
I'm typing this on a 1998 PowerBook (G3 300) with 10.3.2 installed with a little help from XPostFacto. And OS X has gotten faster with each successive release. Don't let the higher initial cost fool you; PowerBooks maintain their value for a long time. Check eBay and see how much my PB is going for these days; one sold the other day with specs similar to mine for ~$300. Not too bad 6 years later.
And yes, I've said this before. No, I am not a karma whore. Yes, I want to change some perceptions regarding the Macintosh platform.
(I should add that XPostFacto has broken a couple of things,
(tig)