The chances that Transgaming has had to produce native ports have gone to shit. The Sims and Kohan are WineX-based crap... Loki's doesn't crash, it's faster, smoother, and the sound doesn't ever get messed up.
I think you'd have more credibility for this opinion if you didn't obviously have a grudge against TransGaming. If you were a subscriber, you should have clearly known that not all games would work, in fact, probably only the ones they support would work. This is made very clear at every stage.
They are bad open-source citizens, and they blatantly lied to me when they said that after a certain number of subscribers, they would release their source code to Wine. I don't care what excuses anyone makes for Transgaming; the fact is that they said it, and now they don't.
I believe they said they'd release their code when they reached 20,000 subscribers. Gav did set a figure, I think that's what it was, not 100% sure. Clearly they are a long way off that figure at the moment. I'd note that TransGamimg have released large amounts of code back to WineHQ - not all of it no, but quite a bit. A lot of the DirectDraw code, the SHM wineserver (though for various reasons that wasn't merged), DCOM code etc etc.
I can't count the number of people that run Quake 3 Arena in WineX... I've talked to them myself, so I KNOW that it's true. I just don't understand this.
Who cares? APIs are just a set of rules about how to invoke system services. Are you going to crusade against games that don't use SDL next, for not being pure enough? You clearly don't understand the nature of the Win32 APIs if you think MS can "break" them - sure they can introduce new things, and remove things, but so can Wine, and randomly removing or changing interfaces in an OS update would just break all their customers software - they cannot do this, and never have.
If Q3 Arena works great under WineX and they want to use it, why not? For all I know, it's easier than installing it under Linux - if they have the CD next to them, why not use it?
Furthermore, WineX hurts Linux's chances of getting native ports.
Nobody has ever actually proven this, it's merely conjecture. A Tale In The Desert was ported to Linux despite the fact that people were running it in Wine just fine months before the official port was ready.
What definately does hurt Linuxs chances of native ports however are a lack of gamers. Wine can only help that situation.
What happens in a few years from now, when WineX is good enough that it can run a lot of games, and then Microsoft sues Transgaming?
Your paranoia is bizarre. What, pray tell, would Microsoft sue TransGaming for? Reimplementations of other companies technologies is legally established as being just fine. Wine has been around for nearly a decade, the most MS have done is put slightly dubious things in the EULAs of their own software - things that probably wouldn't stand up in court either.
The fact is, you appear to be horrendously ill informed, paranoid and blame the economics of Linux gaming on users being "too fucking cheap". Right.
Let me ask you this. If a game works just fine in Wine what in gods name is the justification for producing a version that uses "native" APIs? Let's conveniently ignore the fact that SDL is cross platform, hardly Linux "native". Microsoft has no control over its own APIs you realise - the most they can do is extend them, in which case new games may use technology Wine doesn't implement for a few months, but for older games they cannot be broken.
You appear to take for granted that "native" ports are better than a version that uses the Win32 API, despite the fact that there are virtually no Linux-specific APIs around. X? Cross platform. SDL? Cross platform. GTK? Cross platform. Even GLIBC is cross platform. Your position makes no sense at all, and your wild fatalism just spreads FUD whether you intend it to or not.
The KDE libs offer more features than pure GTK2 at the expense of larger footprint and depending on Qt/KDE. Their choice I guess. I tend to prefer neutral software (which invariably uses GTK2, pure Qt apps are very rare), but I'm not really religious about it.
I would guess that's because most Linux users either pull the source from CVS or use packages built by their distro. I use gaim, but I don't think I ever downloaded it from SourceForge, I originally got it from the CDs, then I pulled it from apt, now I build from CVS. None of those will show on SourceForge.
And of course, there are a lot of Windows users out there.
I know that, I get paid to work on Wine for goodness sake. Nonetheless "emulation" is easier to say that "free API reimplementation" - live with it, please.
I always thought that WINE was a stopgap, a thing to tide you over until your users were comfortable with OpenOffice or whatever. Now we can run tomorrow's Windows apps today. I can't seem to shake the idea that by running Windows apps on Linux waters down the latter and strengthens the former.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that Wine does a lot more than MS Office. What about all that custom business software that there is so much of? No free replacement for them.
The idea that being able to run more applications than another platform "weakens" it is a position I can't understand. The purpose of an OS is to run applications, not to try and force users to run "pure" apps.
I also don't really understand why people seem to think that Linux native software is better than Windows software under emulation. If the integration is there, who cares what APIs it uses?
Companies with huge investments in MS Office may well wish to continue running it, while moving away from Windows. And of course, Wine/CXOffice runs a lot more than just MS Office, the name is slightly misleading. If you need CMYK, then you need Photoshop, and if you want to use Linux, then Wine it is.
wxPython is a binding to wxWindows, which in turn (on Linux) binds to GTK1. If you want to port wxWindows to GTK2, please do so.
I think it'd look better using GTK2 as well, especially now there is GTK-WIMP for good Win32 integration. GTK also has some really nice stock artwork. I suspect they want it to run on the Mac though.
I know this has been said before, but it seems almost everyday Windows become more Unix-like (cleaner, faster, more stable, better) while Linux becomes more Windows-like (less stable, slower, more bloated and less stable [why is is that the 2.2 kernels are generally considered more stable than the 2.4 series?]).
Wait. So, while Windows is getting better, Linux is becoming more like Windows, but is getting worse? No matter how hard I try, I can't reproduce the mental backflips necessary to figure that one out.
You can't have it both ways, either Windows is getting good and Linux is therefore going to get good as well, or Windows is bad, and as a result Linux will be bad also.
I also don't see the stability thing. The main problems these days are related to bugs in X, which are the only real stability issues I have. Even the software is pretty stable I find (at least, the software I use is).
the Linux community has to concede the desktop market to Microsoft and move on.
Except the Linux community wants a good desktop, more for themselves than anything else, and that isn't going to stop. There's nothing to concede. Go check out the latest OSDN survey of free software developers, you'll find that "beating proprietary software" ranks at the bottom of motivations.
It just always seems to me Linux is playing catchup to Microsoft on the desktop while MS is learnig from their mistakes and trying to move forward.
So they're both moving forward then. OK. That's probably true. What is more interesting to ask is, which is moving forward quicker? If Microsoft is moving forward faster than Linux, then Linux will never match up to Windows, indeed, you'd expect people to stop using Linux and go back to Windows. If it's the other way around, then you'd expect Linux to be rapidly maturing next to Windows, and more people to be leaving Windows and using Linux.
Now, maybe where you live it's different, but what I see is lots of the latter, and not much of the former.
I also see Wine catching up with Windows, which is more interesting. Wine has been able to run simple programs perfectly for a long time, and nowadays it can run even quite complex apps like Office, FoxPro and Internet Explorer. Of course new APIs are being introduced all the time, but Windows has a lot of inertia so we won't need to support them for many years.
Jeremy White from CodeWeavers has said in public interviews that they aren't concerned about this possibility - some licenses have tried to tie Office to Windows before, and then they removed those ties apparently, because they'd be illegal.
I rather suspect that if Redmond did try and beat up CodeWeavers, Gates would end up on the wrong side of the courtroom again. Nobody knows how long it'd take for Wine/CodeWeavers to be proven innocent.
Oh, one thing I do know is that Microsoft have been monitoring Wine for many years now, and the extent of their harassment has been a claim that header files are copyrighted (which was abandoned). I'm pretty sure it's bulletproof and they don't know what to do about it.
Because of this, it cannot be beholden to political alliances, such as allegiance to one desktop project (vide Red Hat's closeness to GNOME)
If only that were true. I was talking to a guy the other day from the Debian Desktop project, who claimed they were going to have a vote on KDE vs GNOME then concentrate on that desktop entirely, rather than expend resources on attempting to integrate both. I tried to convince them that wouldn't work and that standards were what they should put effort into, but I never checked up to see what happened.
I suppose the Debian Desktop project is not representative of the project as a whole though.
MacOS is UNIX enough for Apple to get good marketing juice out of it, however it's different enough from most other forms of UNIX in terms of the components it uses to be rightfully excluded from this comparison.
Actually, he should have really limited himself to free software platforms (ie Linux/FreeBSD/etc) because AFAIK no commercial unix except the new Solaris uses FreeType. MacOS certainly does not.
Actually, on properly setup gnome 2.2 boxes with fontilus (like redhat 9) just open fonts:// in Nautilus and drop them in. Nothing to it (but you have to know about fonts:// which will be fixed soon).
This is where rigor comes in. It's not clear to me that humans are necessarily self-aware. It may be that humans perceive self-awareness, though, as an illusion of the intelligence their brains give them.
I get the distinct impression that we're hitting language barriers here. What is self-awareness, and how can you measure it, or prove it?
Self-awareness is more a feeling that we all have, but can't really explain. If you were talking to somebody who was not self-aware, how could you tell?
Hint - the people who worked on KHTML, gcc and so on were not paid by NeXT. Go look at who pays the salaries of these guys, you'll find it's Redhat, SuSE, Mandrake....
Sensory input only explains so much. There is still brain activity even in states of total sensory deprivation for instance.
I recall hearing somewhere that anyone could achieve results similar to this test without any effort at all. Systems on the edge of chaos are funny- one butterfly beats its wings, and the resulting probabilities collapse differently. IIRC, though, these tests have very poor reliability and don't amount to much.
Well like I said, these tests were done in controlled conditions (or so this book said, obviously I wasn't there) and were reasonably repeatable with the same person.
Again, this doesn't take quantum hoodoo to explain. Brains are built to control bodies. They communicate through a bus of several major nerves that service the major sensory organs and muscles (read: I/O devices) of the body.
You aren't distinguishing between mind and brain. "Mind" is a higher level concept, of something that isn't necessarily rooted in the physical. "Brain" is the thing inside your skull.
If brains drive bodies, what drives the brains? Sensory input doesn't explain it all.
Unfortunately (for once) I got all this stuff out of books and a TV documentary. I think the book was called Supernature by Lyall sombody, Lyall Watson?
According to science, we think because neurons fire in our brains. When the brain dies, no more thoughts.
Yet science has not (to my knowledge) always explained what causes those neurons to fire, has it? Sure, neurons fire because other neurons connected to them fire... that only goes so far.
One of the things that I've found most fascinating is the theory that the mind can influence things at the subatomic level. During the 60s/70s, the USSR did some experiments with people who rumour said had strong psychokinetic abilities (ESP). Now, the Ruskies were into all kinds of bizarre things, they researched things that Western science wrote off as ridiculous.
Anyway, they found some pretty interesting things. Like, they didn't find anybody that could move objects with their mind, or anything like that. But, they did find a few who could apparently alter the rate of nuclear decay. As you're probably aware (you read slashdot after all), subatomic decay is essentially random according to todays science. What they found was that these "psychics" could, in controlled conditions, speed up or slow down a number of a screen that measured decay. I can't recall if they were told what the number meant or not, but they could seemingly control the process at will.
Interesting. Could the mind impose itself onto low level randomness? If so, that could be the missing link between mind and body.
I once saw a documentary with Dr Robert Winston, if you're in the UK you'll probably know who I mean. It described the internals of a neuron quite well, pity I can't remember any of the names. The one thing that struck me though was that a part at the core was described as being in a state of quantum instability - it's small enough to be affected by uncertainty.
If mind can affect quantum probabilities, and our brains are in a state of quantum instability.... aah. You have mind controlling body. Such a thing would answer many questions.
There are loads of standards out there, especially under the MPEG banner. Doesn't mean they aren't obscure. Ever heard of MPEG 7? Thought not.
And considering they ship music with their consumer products encoded in MP3 and their own audio application encodes only into MP3 I'd have to say your comments are pretty far off.
What they do with Macs is of little concern to me, I don't own one. I'm more interested about the format they make their trailers available in, and I know there are video formats that can be played on pretty much any computer in the world that work just fine - whatever it is they use is not such a format. Hence my pessimism for this deal.
I'd be willing to buy a Linux version of Quicktime for my iBook if the price was reasonable; the Linux community would port if for free if given the source.
That's wishful thinking, it's more a problem of codecs than anything else. Apple could avoid the problem entirely by simply using well known codecs like mpeg2, Ogg Vorbis etc, but they tend not to. QuickTime the file format is already readable on linux.
Couldn't Microsoft use their monopoly on desktop OS's to create a monopoly in legal music downloading?
As opposed to what? A monopoly of Windows vs a monopoly of QuickTime. Oooh goody, what a choice.
Because you know, I somehow doubt that even the saintly Apple would be letting me pay for music in the Ogg format. Considering that every trailer they release uses more and more obscure codecs making them actively hard to play on anything other than QuickTime itself (AAC anybody?) I couldn't really care less who owns Universal - I know as a Linux user I'll be shafted anyway.
Windows has always been an afterthought for Apple and Linux, the platform from which they take so much, never gets a lookin.
Want my opinion? Java version of Word Perfect runs better on Linux than that Wine-enhanced native Linux version they released ever did.
I read an interview with some of the people working on the Wine version of Corels stuff, and they claimed that it had been pushed out far earlier than the development team wanted. Apparently there was an internal service pack, never released, that really brought things up to scratch.
The horrid resizing behavior is due to the seperate window manager.
Not entirely true I'm afraid. I assume you're referring to the way the contents of the window stick at its current size until you stop dragging (or feels "sticky" as you drag).
That's caused by a bug/design flaw in the XFree smart scheduler. It has little to do with the asyncronity of WM and client, if you rewind the clock back to '95 or so when everybody used FVWM and Motif or whatever, you'll find no such bizarre dragging effects.
Now, it's true that even then with proper scheduling, fast updates and so on that doesn't entirely eliminate the latency between client resize and border resize. Latency or lockups on resize when the WM and client are synced together can produce even wierder effects, as g4dget has so eloquently pointed out. That is an issue on every OS, if you don't believe me try MacOS X and resize the Finder.
The real solution to that problem has three components:
1) Unbreak the X scheduling algorithm (i'm being sloppy with wording here, the X protocol doesn't specify any such algorithm, but it's easier to write X than XFree86/Xwin every time).
2) Synchronise WM and client resizes using XSYNC with timeouts to prevent a locked/stopped application from sticking to the screen. Havoc Pennington played around with this a few months ago, but it's still not really mature as a technology yet.
3) Speed up widget toolkits. Actually GTK2 isn't that slow - it seems to spend a lot of its time inside the X server itself waiting for RENDER. As RENDER/X is optimized further that will produce speedups in toolkits, so reducing the latency between client and window border further.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'd have more credibility for this opinion if you didn't obviously have a grudge against TransGaming. If you were a subscriber, you should have clearly known that not all games would work, in fact, probably only the ones they support would work. This is made very clear at every stage.
They are bad open-source citizens, and they blatantly lied to me when they said that after a certain number of subscribers, they would release their source code to Wine. I don't care what excuses anyone makes for Transgaming; the fact is that they said it, and now they don't.
I believe they said they'd release their code when they reached 20,000 subscribers. Gav did set a figure, I think that's what it was, not 100% sure. Clearly they are a long way off that figure at the moment. I'd note that TransGamimg have released large amounts of code back to WineHQ - not all of it no, but quite a bit. A lot of the DirectDraw code, the SHM wineserver (though for various reasons that wasn't merged), DCOM code etc etc.
I can't count the number of people that run Quake 3 Arena in WineX... I've talked to them myself, so I KNOW that it's true. I just don't understand this.
Who cares? APIs are just a set of rules about how to invoke system services. Are you going to crusade against games that don't use SDL next, for not being pure enough? You clearly don't understand the nature of the Win32 APIs if you think MS can "break" them - sure they can introduce new things, and remove things, but so can Wine, and randomly removing or changing interfaces in an OS update would just break all their customers software - they cannot do this, and never have.
If Q3 Arena works great under WineX and they want to use it, why not? For all I know, it's easier than installing it under Linux - if they have the CD next to them, why not use it?
Furthermore, WineX hurts Linux's chances of getting native ports.
Nobody has ever actually proven this, it's merely conjecture. A Tale In The Desert was ported to Linux despite the fact that people were running it in Wine just fine months before the official port was ready.
What definately does hurt Linuxs chances of native ports however are a lack of gamers. Wine can only help that situation.
What happens in a few years from now, when WineX is good enough that it can run a lot of games, and then Microsoft sues Transgaming?
Your paranoia is bizarre. What, pray tell, would Microsoft sue TransGaming for? Reimplementations of other companies technologies is legally established as being just fine. Wine has been around for nearly a decade, the most MS have done is put slightly dubious things in the EULAs of their own software - things that probably wouldn't stand up in court either.
The fact is, you appear to be horrendously ill informed, paranoid and blame the economics of Linux gaming on users being "too fucking cheap". Right.
Let me ask you this. If a game works just fine in Wine what in gods name is the justification for producing a version that uses "native" APIs? Let's conveniently ignore the fact that SDL is cross platform, hardly Linux "native". Microsoft has no control over its own APIs you realise - the most they can do is extend them, in which case new games may use technology Wine doesn't implement for a few months, but for older games they cannot be broken.
You appear to take for granted that "native" ports are better than a version that uses the Win32 API, despite the fact that there are virtually no Linux-specific APIs around. X? Cross platform. SDL? Cross platform. GTK? Cross platform. Even GLIBC is cross platform. Your position makes no sense at all, and your wild fatalism just spreads FUD whether you intend it to or not.
The KDE libs offer more features than pure GTK2 at the expense of larger footprint and depending on Qt/KDE. Their choice I guess. I tend to prefer neutral software (which invariably uses GTK2, pure Qt apps are very rare), but I'm not really religious about it.
And of course, there are a lot of Windows users out there.
I know that, I get paid to work on Wine for goodness sake. Nonetheless "emulation" is easier to say that "free API reimplementation" - live with it, please.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that Wine does a lot more than MS Office. What about all that custom business software that there is so much of? No free replacement for them.
The idea that being able to run more applications than another platform "weakens" it is a position I can't understand. The purpose of an OS is to run applications, not to try and force users to run "pure" apps.
I also don't really understand why people seem to think that Linux native software is better than Windows software under emulation. If the integration is there, who cares what APIs it uses?
Companies with huge investments in MS Office may well wish to continue running it, while moving away from Windows. And of course, Wine/CXOffice runs a lot more than just MS Office, the name is slightly misleading. If you need CMYK, then you need Photoshop, and if you want to use Linux, then Wine it is.
I think it'd look better using GTK2 as well, especially now there is GTK-WIMP for good Win32 integration. GTK also has some really nice stock artwork. I suspect they want it to run on the Mac though.
Wait. So, while Windows is getting better, Linux is becoming more like Windows, but is getting worse? No matter how hard I try, I can't reproduce the mental backflips necessary to figure that one out.
You can't have it both ways, either Windows is getting good and Linux is therefore going to get good as well, or Windows is bad, and as a result Linux will be bad also.
I also don't see the stability thing. The main problems these days are related to bugs in X, which are the only real stability issues I have. Even the software is pretty stable I find (at least, the software I use is).
the Linux community has to concede the desktop market to Microsoft and move on.
Except the Linux community wants a good desktop, more for themselves than anything else, and that isn't going to stop. There's nothing to concede. Go check out the latest OSDN survey of free software developers, you'll find that "beating proprietary software" ranks at the bottom of motivations.
It just always seems to me Linux is playing catchup to Microsoft on the desktop while MS is learnig from their mistakes and trying to move forward.
So they're both moving forward then. OK. That's probably true. What is more interesting to ask is, which is moving forward quicker? If Microsoft is moving forward faster than Linux, then Linux will never match up to Windows, indeed, you'd expect people to stop using Linux and go back to Windows. If it's the other way around, then you'd expect Linux to be rapidly maturing next to Windows, and more people to be leaving Windows and using Linux.
Now, maybe where you live it's different, but what I see is lots of the latter, and not much of the former.
I also see Wine catching up with Windows, which is more interesting. Wine has been able to run simple programs perfectly for a long time, and nowadays it can run even quite complex apps like Office, FoxPro and Internet Explorer. Of course new APIs are being introduced all the time, but Windows has a lot of inertia so we won't need to support them for many years.
I think you are needlessly pessimistic.
You can run MSI on Wine of course, but I have no idea whether MSI requires a Windows license or not
I rather suspect that if Redmond did try and beat up CodeWeavers, Gates would end up on the wrong side of the courtroom again. Nobody knows how long it'd take for Wine/CodeWeavers to be proven innocent.
Oh, one thing I do know is that Microsoft have been monitoring Wine for many years now, and the extent of their harassment has been a claim that header files are copyrighted (which was abandoned). I'm pretty sure it's bulletproof and they don't know what to do about it.
If only that were true. I was talking to a guy the other day from the Debian Desktop project, who claimed they were going to have a vote on KDE vs GNOME then concentrate on that desktop entirely, rather than expend resources on attempting to integrate both. I tried to convince them that wouldn't work and that standards were what they should put effort into, but I never checked up to see what happened.
I suppose the Debian Desktop project is not representative of the project as a whole though.
MacOS is UNIX enough for Apple to get good marketing juice out of it, however it's different enough from most other forms of UNIX in terms of the components it uses to be rightfully excluded from this comparison. Actually, he should have really limited himself to free software platforms (ie Linux/FreeBSD/etc) because AFAIK no commercial unix except the new Solaris uses FreeType. MacOS certainly does not.
Actually, on properly setup gnome 2.2 boxes with fontilus (like redhat 9) just open fonts:// in Nautilus and drop them in. Nothing to it (but you have to know about fonts:// which will be fixed soon).
I get the distinct impression that we're hitting language barriers here. What is self-awareness, and how can you measure it, or prove it?
Self-awareness is more a feeling that we all have, but can't really explain. If you were talking to somebody who was not self-aware, how could you tell?
Hint - the people who worked on KHTML, gcc and so on were not paid by NeXT. Go look at who pays the salaries of these guys, you'll find it's Redhat, SuSE, Mandrake....
Sensory input only explains so much. There is still brain activity even in states of total sensory deprivation for instance.
I recall hearing somewhere that anyone could achieve results similar to this test without any effort at all. Systems on the edge of chaos are funny- one butterfly beats its wings, and the resulting probabilities collapse differently. IIRC, though, these tests have very poor reliability and don't amount to much.
Well like I said, these tests were done in controlled conditions (or so this book said, obviously I wasn't there) and were reasonably repeatable with the same person.
Again, this doesn't take quantum hoodoo to explain. Brains are built to control bodies. They communicate through a bus of several major nerves that service the major sensory organs and muscles (read: I/O devices) of the body.
You aren't distinguishing between mind and brain. "Mind" is a higher level concept, of something that isn't necessarily rooted in the physical. "Brain" is the thing inside your skull.
If brains drive bodies, what drives the brains? Sensory input doesn't explain it all.
Unfortunately (for once) I got all this stuff out of books and a TV documentary. I think the book was called Supernature by Lyall sombody, Lyall Watson?
Yet science has not (to my knowledge) always explained what causes those neurons to fire, has it? Sure, neurons fire because other neurons connected to them fire... that only goes so far.
One of the things that I've found most fascinating is the theory that the mind can influence things at the subatomic level. During the 60s/70s, the USSR did some experiments with people who rumour said had strong psychokinetic abilities (ESP). Now, the Ruskies were into all kinds of bizarre things, they researched things that Western science wrote off as ridiculous.
Anyway, they found some pretty interesting things. Like, they didn't find anybody that could move objects with their mind, or anything like that. But, they did find a few who could apparently alter the rate of nuclear decay. As you're probably aware (you read slashdot after all), subatomic decay is essentially random according to todays science. What they found was that these "psychics" could, in controlled conditions, speed up or slow down a number of a screen that measured decay. I can't recall if they were told what the number meant or not, but they could seemingly control the process at will.
Interesting. Could the mind impose itself onto low level randomness? If so, that could be the missing link between mind and body.
I once saw a documentary with Dr Robert Winston, if you're in the UK you'll probably know who I mean. It described the internals of a neuron quite well, pity I can't remember any of the names. The one thing that struck me though was that a part at the core was described as being in a state of quantum instability - it's small enough to be affected by uncertainty.
If mind can affect quantum probabilities, and our brains are in a state of quantum instability .... aah. You have mind controlling body. Such a thing would answer many questions.
This is a beta release, not a final product.
For comparison, here is the equivalent (empty) document in OpenOffice.
:editing-cycles>1</meta:editing-cycles><meta:editi ng-duration>PT0S</meta:editing-duration><meta:user -defined meta:name="Info 1"/><meta:user-defined meta:name="Info 2"/><meta:user-defined meta:name="Info 3"/><meta:user-defined meta:name="Info 4"/><meta:document-statistic meta:table-count="0" meta:image-count="0" meta:object-count="0" meta:page-count="1" meta:paragraph-count="1" meta:word-count="0" meta:character-count="0"/></office:meta></office:d ocument-meta>
content.xml:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE office:document-content PUBLIC "-//OpenOffice.org//DTD OfficeDocument 1.0//EN" "office.dtd">
<office:document-content xmlns:office="http://openoffice.org/2000/office" xmlns:style="http://openoffice.org/2000/style" xmlns:text="http://openoffice.org/2000/text" xmlns:table="http://openoffice.org/2000/table" xmlns:draw="http://openoffice.org/2000/drawing" xmlns:fo="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:number="http://openoffice.org/2000/datastyle " xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:chart="http://openoffice.org/2000/chart" xmlns:dr3d="http://openoffice.org/2000/dr3d" xmlns:math="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:form="http://openoffice.org/2000/form" xmlns:script="http://openoffice.org/2000/script" office:class="text" office:version="1.0">
<office:script/>
<office:font-decls>
<style:font-decl style:name="Arial Unicode MS" fo:font-family="'Arial Unicode MS'" style:font-pitch="variable"/>
<style:font-decl style:name="HG Mincho Light J" fo:font-family="'HG Mincho Light J'" style:font-pitch="variable"/>
<style:font-decl style:name="Nimbus Roman No9 L" fo:font-family="'Nimbus Roman No9 L'" style:font-family-generic="roman" style:font-pitch="variable"/>
</office:font-decls>
<office:automatic-styles/>
<office:body>
<text:sequence-decls>
<text:sequence-decl text:display-outline-level="0" text:name="Illustration"/>
<text:sequence-decl text:display-outline-level="0" text:name="Table"/>
<text:sequence-decl text:display-outline-level="0" text:name="Text"/>
<text:sequence-decl text:display-outline-level="0" text:name="Drawing"/>
</text:sequence-decls>
<text:p text:style-name="Standard"/>
</office:body>
</office:document-content>
meta.xml:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE office:document-meta PUBLIC "-//OpenOffice.org//DTD OfficeDocument 1.0//EN" "office.dtd"><office:document-meta xmlns:office="http://openoffice.org/2000/office" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:meta="http://openoffice.org/2000/meta" office:version="1.0"><office:meta><meta:generator> OpenOffice.org 1.0.1 (Linux)</meta:generator><!--SRC641_[7663]_LINUX_IN TEL__stripples.devel.redhat.com_at_9/10/02_8:50:05 --><meta:creation-date>2003-04-14T09:09:00</meta:c reation-date><dc:language>en-GB</dc:language><meta
That is only 2 out of the 4 or 5 files openoffice saves. Oh, and for all those who made sucky Base64 jokes about MS WordML, take a look at this:
<config:config-item config:name="PrinterSetup" config:type="base64Binary">ugL+/0dlbmVyaWMgUHJpbnR lcgAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAU0 dFTlBSVAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAMAAAIAAAAA
There are loads of standards out there, especially under the MPEG banner. Doesn't mean they aren't obscure. Ever heard of MPEG 7? Thought not.
And considering they ship music with their consumer products encoded in MP3 and their own audio application encodes only into MP3 I'd have to say your comments are pretty far off.
What they do with Macs is of little concern to me, I don't own one. I'm more interested about the format they make their trailers available in, and I know there are video formats that can be played on pretty much any computer in the world that work just fine - whatever it is they use is not such a format. Hence my pessimism for this deal.
That's wishful thinking, it's more a problem of codecs than anything else. Apple could avoid the problem entirely by simply using well known codecs like mpeg2, Ogg Vorbis etc, but they tend not to. QuickTime the file format is already readable on linux.
As opposed to what? A monopoly of Windows vs a monopoly of QuickTime. Oooh goody, what a choice.
Because you know, I somehow doubt that even the saintly Apple would be letting me pay for music in the Ogg format. Considering that every trailer they release uses more and more obscure codecs making them actively hard to play on anything other than QuickTime itself (AAC anybody?) I couldn't really care less who owns Universal - I know as a Linux user I'll be shafted anyway.
Windows has always been an afterthought for Apple and Linux, the platform from which they take so much, never gets a lookin.
I read an interview with some of the people working on the Wine version of Corels stuff, and they claimed that it had been pushed out far earlier than the development team wanted. Apparently there was an internal service pack, never released, that really brought things up to scratch.
Not entirely true I'm afraid. I assume you're referring to the way the contents of the window stick at its current size until you stop dragging (or feels "sticky" as you drag).
That's caused by a bug/design flaw in the XFree smart scheduler. It has little to do with the asyncronity of WM and client, if you rewind the clock back to '95 or so when everybody used FVWM and Motif or whatever, you'll find no such bizarre dragging effects.
Now, it's true that even then with proper scheduling, fast updates and so on that doesn't entirely eliminate the latency between client resize and border resize. Latency or lockups on resize when the WM and client are synced together can produce even wierder effects, as g4dget has so eloquently pointed out. That is an issue on every OS, if you don't believe me try MacOS X and resize the Finder.
The real solution to that problem has three components:
1) Unbreak the X scheduling algorithm (i'm being sloppy with wording here, the X protocol doesn't specify any such algorithm, but it's easier to write X than XFree86/Xwin every time).
2) Synchronise WM and client resizes using XSYNC with timeouts to prevent a locked/stopped application from sticking to the screen. Havoc Pennington played around with this a few months ago, but it's still not really mature as a technology yet.
3) Speed up widget toolkits. Actually GTK2 isn't that slow - it seems to spend a lot of its time inside the X server itself waiting for RENDER. As RENDER/X is optimized further that will produce speedups in toolkits, so reducing the latency between client and window border further.