a) has buttons b) has windows c) can draw them on a screen.
Syllable offers a lot more than this, but the first poster's point was that nobody cares. That is very frustrating from a developer's standpoint, since you put a lot of effort into a kernel, display server, or filesystem, but cannot expect people to read the article and find out about this since there are pictures that look a lot like linux, or windows, or foo-os.
Syllables featureset is not express in terms of what it can do, but what it will do;-)
Syllable does not use X or the linux kernel - it uses it's own SMP and fully preemptable kernel, it's own 64 bit filesyste (with attributes). and it's own alpha-channal-aware display server. It uses a C++ API that is similar to beos. And it is completely free.
In the end, we expect syllable to be a os that is nice to work with - easy to use, easy to program. Since it does not use X as a display server, It provides its own toolkit. This will help applications maintain one look and feel. Although most posix apps can be ported (a la./configure, make, make install), Syllable will be most powerful when native apps are written using the fs api's to store/index data, etc. It should compare more to beos and macos x than linux or qnx.
There are other hobby OSes. Syllable just happens to be reasonably far along (thanks to Kurt Skauen) and seems to have a lot of momentum (thanks to Vanders.)
Machine capacity: If they have sized their standard machine to host, say, 200 sites and partitioned out the data space accordingly then you can think of someone who uses 10 times the normal data quota as really using up 10 users worth of capacity on that machine as a whole.
It's actually more that that. if 250 megs is the maximum for a site, then they likely expect most sites to average much less than that, say 100 megs (to make the math easy - it's probably much less than this). so if you need 10 times that 250, or 2.5 gigs, you have used up the space of 25 "normal" users.
not exactly. I need to something to replace MS Word as the tool of choice for creating tech specs, arch docs, configuration docs, and end user documentation for our software company. All of these are kept in our SCM repository (Borland Starbase, as the case happens to be.)
I need an editor, not an editor tied to a CMS (and a browser).
In our company, we have a terrible problem with content management - most of it caused by a reliance on you-know-who's office suite for documents. I have proosed several times that we migrate to XML (preferably docbook) but the reality is there are no tools for the no-technical types to create documents.
What we need a warm-fuzzy WYSIaWYG editor that can looks like a word processor but uses XML as it's native format so that documents can be diffed and transformed easily. There are lots of word processors, and lots of XML editors, but no word processors for XML. (and please, before you mention OpenOffice.org, bear in mind that it's DOC format it zipped XML, and therefore not diffable.)
The tools are close - you can almost use OpenOffice.org for docbook, or someone could develop the tools to diff and transfrom their current format, but until then we are stuck with proprietary formats (making books like the above necessary, i guess).
if it were open i could port it to linux and compile it as a native app so that a) i wouldn't need wine b) it could updated and extended c) it wouldn't look like ass on my gnome desktop.
a binary that runs on linux is still a binary, and a windows binary that runs with wine on linux is not quite as good as a native binary.
notwithstanding - i appreciated the work that the kazaalite guys have done to sort-of free a great tool by removing the crap-ware from it:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Screenshot reveal that this OS:
a) has buttons
b) has windows
c) can draw them on a screen.
Syllable offers a lot more than this, but the first poster's point was that nobody cares. That is very frustrating from a developer's standpoint, since you put a lot of effort into a kernel, display server, or filesystem, but cannot expect people to read the article and find out about this since there are pictures that look a lot like linux, or windows, or foo-os.
I maintain my sheesh.
Judging from the screenshots (isn't that the way we all review an OS?)...
Umm, no, that's not how we review an os. Maybe if we're on crack.
The "look" is themeable (like everyone else). But if we use your conclusion, then Windows with litestep is THE SAME as linux.
Sheesh.
Syllables featureset is not express in terms of what it can do, but what it will do ;-)
./configure, make, make install), Syllable will be most powerful when native apps are written using the fs api's to store/index data, etc. It should compare more to beos and macos x than linux or qnx.
Syllable does not use X or the linux kernel - it uses it's own SMP and fully preemptable kernel, it's own 64 bit filesyste (with attributes). and it's own alpha-channal-aware display server. It uses a C++ API that is similar to beos. And it is completely free.
In the end, we expect syllable to be a os that is nice to work with - easy to use, easy to program. Since it does not use X as a display server, It provides its own toolkit. This will help applications maintain one look and feel. Although most posix apps can be ported (a la
There are other hobby OSes. Syllable just happens to be reasonably far along (thanks to Kurt Skauen) and seems to have a lot of momentum (thanks to Vanders.)
You're right. WooHOO! (it wasn't last time I checked...)
Yes, but not "V: The Final Battle". I am _so_ waiting for that!
"/dev/dsp" is on fire!
Machine capacity: If they have sized their standard machine to host, say, 200 sites and partitioned out the data space accordingly then you can think of someone who uses 10 times the normal data quota as really using up 10 users worth of capacity on that machine as a whole.
It's actually more that that. if 250 megs is the maximum for a site, then they likely expect most sites to average much less than that, say 100 megs (to make the math easy - it's probably much less than this). so if you need 10 times that 250, or 2.5 gigs, you have used up the space of 25 "normal" users.
not exactly. I need to something to replace MS Word as the tool of choice for creating tech specs, arch docs, configuration docs, and end user documentation for our software company. All of these are kept in our SCM repository (Borland Starbase, as the case happens to be.)
I need an editor, not an editor tied to a CMS (and a browser).
I did try. I did save as (like the directions said) and it was not in the list of types i could save as.
In our company, we have a terrible problem with content management - most of it caused by a reliance on you-know-who's office suite for documents. I have proosed several times that we migrate to XML (preferably docbook) but the reality is there are no tools for the no-technical types to create documents.
What we need a warm-fuzzy WYSIaWYG editor that can looks like a word processor but uses XML as it's native format so that documents can be diffed and transformed easily. There are lots of word processors, and lots of XML editors, but no word processors for XML. (and please, before you mention OpenOffice.org, bear in mind that it's DOC format it zipped XML, and therefore not diffable.)
The tools are close - you can almost use OpenOffice.org for docbook, or someone could develop the tools to diff and transfrom their current format, but until then we are stuck with proprietary formats (making books like the above necessary, i guess).
I'm running out of space myself, and if i can't solve it quick I'll have to give up my collection of MFM hardrives...
yep, that's the one...
Do "those British people" that you refer to happen to be the group know as Monty Python?
Living in North America, i don't think you can discount marketing as a true driver. Any movie will be a success with the correct marketer behind it.
From the title I thought that this was about paintings of old Apple computers.
but i wouldn't buy one from someone that uses java applets for buttons on their web site. Ew!
Oh, right it's not for sale there. Good, I feel better.
show me the money.
if it were open i could port it to linux and compile it as a native app so that a) i wouldn't need wine b) it could updated and extended c) it wouldn't look like ass on my gnome desktop.
:-)
a binary that runs on linux is still a binary, and a windows binary that runs with wine on linux is not quite as good as a native binary.
notwithstanding - i appreciated the work that the kazaalite guys have done to sort-of free a great tool by removing the crap-ware from it
now if i only had an open grokster/kazaa client that would run on linux, i'd be all set.
A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire
;-)
very nice
whose hand is up RMS's ass?
Is your sig talking about the window manager?
A witty saying proves nothing.
why does allowing binaries to be signed make DRM "ok". maybe i don't understand DRM (which is likely...)
Glad to be of service to my country and my slashdot. ;-)