Mandrake is far from going down the tubes if by saying "going down the tubes" you mean going out of business.
Um...
They had some problems, they have since fixed those problems, but are having some issues with a lack of available cash on hand to cover their debt. Due to that, they needed bankruptcy protection while they raise more cash and continue working on the next release of their OS and other products.
Ah. You *do* realize that companies that are going to go out of business act as if nothing is wrong up until the last possible minute to avoid losing customers, investors, and credit? "Lack of available cash" and asking for donations sounds to *me* like serious trouble.
I'm betting against Mandrake existing as a company in three years, but we'll see.
This has an effect on lots of business and to think that a few temporary setbacks are enough to end a great company such as Mandrake... that's nuts. I'm not claiming that Mandrake will be around forever. They may eventually buckle and fold but that won't happen any time soon.
Happened to Loki. Can definitely happen to Mandrake.
I know both Desktops on it's best using GNOME CVS HEAD and KDE CVS HEAD here.
After all, what better way to get a reasonable judgement on how consistent and usable a software package is than to use CVS builds?
GNOME is not as integrated as KDE is. Have you ever dealt with KDE and seen how all the apps are playing together ?
I wish people would stop calling this "integration". You can have apps that conform to a common IPC standard without "integrating" bits and pieces of them into each other, a la Explorer, Office, and Windows.
Usability, have you seen what happened recently to GNOME's interface it toally alienate GNOME from the rest of available applications that work and require X with any toolkit.
No. What are you talking about?
Consistency. We all know that with the ongoing versions of GNOME the developers are trying to get consistency into the applications but yet all dialogs are still looking differently.
True. The same is also same of KDE apps. Oh, maybe not the very core ones, but there are only a few of those.
There is no real pixel exact layout of the dialogs, menus and windows because many GNOME applications are written either with the GUI hardcoded
I've done this, once, to learn the toolkit reasonably well. It's quite time-consuming, and not something most people are going to want to do.
or Glade or Bonobo therefore all UI's are looking differently and makes it hard for the UI reviewer to get a structure inside.
Um...what? Glade is a *good* thing for UI design! It makes it easy to *fix* inconsistencies!
You mean high-level widgets, like Open and Save dialogs? Gnome provides standard versions of those, exactly as you want.
That's only a minor point of the whole mountain. KParts for example, every new written app follows a strict rule of KDE and embedds itself seamingless into the whole desktop.
Errr...that's fluff. It doesn't say anything.
It has a Webbrowser embedded in a Filemanager
"Microsoft did it, so it *must* be a good idea!"
GNOME has a hard and long way to go to at least keep up with a little bit of KDE's features. Keeping up with KDE itself is a lost battle.
I know one KDE fan in person. He uses GNOME/GTK apps on a regular basis, because the KDE application set size doesn't cover all his needs.
I don't know any non-KDE users that use KDE/Qt apps (with the possible exception of licq -- its Qt plugin is somewhat nicer than its gtk plugin, though if you wanted to avoid Qt by usin the gtk plugin, you certainly could).
Basically, with Mandrake looking like it's going down the tubes, there are 2 major commercial Linux desktop distros left, Redhat and SuSE.
AFAI can tell, SuSE is in even worse shape than Mandrake, at least in the States. Red Hat is the only one that's doing particularly well. I think their approach was better -- focus on the most lucrative markets quickly (business server stuff) to build profitability, then use this established foothold to start going after the desktop market. Mandrake (and to a lesser extent SuSE) tried to be pure desktop distributions at a time when Linux really wasn't all that competitive with Windows for the average user.
RedHat are popular in the states, and are "biased" towards Gnome, that is they have more Gnome hackers with experience than KDE hackers.
Yup. I could never figure out why the KDE folks can complain so bitterly about RH not throwing money at beefing up their KDE support. I don't see the GNOME folks complaining about Mandrake not supporting *them* well.
Some people will tell you that GTK is harder to program for, but in reality that's not the case, if C++ is your thing then both Qt and GTKmm are excellent.
MMmmm...I used GTKmm for a while, and while IMHO it fits better with the OO design of C++, it's really easier to use if you're familiar with GTK+ than if you're just starting from scratch. Incidently, Guillimue (I'm sure I mispelled his name) Laurent, one of the GTKmm designers, got fed up with how difficult it was to cleanly do a GNOME C++ API (unlike GTK), and ended up moving to Qt.
I think you're exaggurating when you say KDE is slower and uglier on redhat.
I've found KDE to be slower than GTK, period.
Uglier is, of course, a matter of taste.:-)
I think the BlueCurve artwork is great, but you can always retheme it easily, and it should be no slower.
I'm not a huge fan of BlueCurve, but then I like a rather spartan interface...
First of all, VMS has a really good built in help facility. Use it.
Second of all, *why* are you going along on this one? There have to be *zillions* of old VMS junkies that are out of work that are very competent at this.
I've spent the last hour or so talking with the President of the PCI-SIG.
IIRC, isn't the PCI-SIG President also an IBM employee?
Given that, I'm kind of frusterated with the entire "why don't you simply talk with your employer (IBM) and maybe you can give them (IBM) rights to your database" bit that was aimed at you.
Perhaps it sounds a bit conspiracy theorist, but what would you *expect* from someone trying to get control of the database and screwing up to say, especially after the mass outcry from PCI-SIG members, including statements that they will seek the ouster of the responsible party? "I did it carefully and deliberately, and I'm glad about it?" Heck, no. "Gee, I simply sort of overlooked it, and I can't really be blamed, but I accept full responsibility" is more along the lines of what I'd expect, and is what I got.
It simply blows the mind, corporate politicking.
My thoughts are with you -- perhaps PCI-SIG will end up compensating you for some of your efforts over the years, by way of apology.
If you pull down your website because of a flimsy legal threat, you're really no better than them.
Bullshit.
On one hand, we have a large, well-funded organization with a legal team making threats to sue (which is what a C&D letter *is*).
On the other hand, we have a guy who has been volunteering his time and money for years to support all the people in the community. He has been making no money, and costing said organization nothing.
You can use a trademark in all sorts of situations legally.
If I publish a web page called "Apple Computer Is The Lamest Computer Company Alive And This Is Why", I'm perfectly entitled to use the phrase "Apple Computer", even though Apple owns the trademark on the phrase.
I don't see what's wrong with this, nobody objects to IBM's right to trademark "IBM".
I didn't see Jim say *anything* about PCI-SIG not being able to trademark "PCI". He was upset about not being able to use "PCI" to name, well, a list of PCI devices.
The difference is that if I make a website reading "Timeline of IBM Software Releases", *IBM* doesn't try and sue me for infringing their trademark.
The way I understand this, he was offering a great service, they had a small problem with some of the format he presented the info, they come to him in a legal way to try and get this resolved (nicely) and he desides to shut down his service. Why is he shutting down? Sounds to me like he's shutting down out of spite
I don't buy it. This might be appropriate if one were to be dealing with another company, but this guy is working out of the same sort of community spirit that powers the open source world. He wasn't making money off this. I think he more than has the right to be treated as a person, with a non-legalistic phone call first.
Furthermore, I completely understand his reaction. He's someone who has put significant personal resources into doing something which helped this company. Are they legally required to be nice in return? No. But I think that it's quite reasonable to expect them to be on simple common courtesy grounds.
Making xlib reentrant, and taking the associated performance hit, would be simply silly. Why should, say, snes9x, run slower because you want reentrant capabilities? A tiny percentage of apps have a multithreaded GUI -- you said that you were using Qt. Fine -- I could see support in Qt, but putting in Xlib would be a Bad Thing for the 99% of people out there that *don't* require multithreaded access to the GUI.
Secondly, threading a GUI program is a Bad Idea -- there's lots of interaction between threads in a GUI, and locking could turn into a nightmare. All you do in a GUI is usually check a value, paint something, and you have to lock all the values that might be shared.
Thirdly, it doesn't make sense for an event-based GUI. You have a thread that handles incoming events, maybe starts a *non-GUI* thread if you're really wedded to the idea of threading, and then gets the hell back to waiting for another event pronto so that you don't have a lot of latency on user input. Here's an example, an instance that might seem *on the surface* like a good place to do threading if X were reentrant. You have a GUI ftp program. One thread handles events, and each thread would download data and update the progress bar by repainting it. Bad idea. Now if I require a redraw, I have to sit around and wait for more data to come in. What I *really* want to have happen is have a counter for how far the progress bar is. When I require an update (periodically, and when a redraw is required), the GUI thread does it, checking the progress distance value. The non-GUI thread doing the transfer would set that value (in addition to a "dirty" flag) so that I get updates once a second or so, not 400 times a second if lots of little chunks of data are coming in. The GUI is simply a separate task from non-GUI tasks.
First they start with the fastest PC laptop available, which isn't really a laptop, but a desktop cpu crammed into a laptop.
True. I'd argue that graphic designers that really do need the extra juice are unlikely to be running laptops *anyway*, due to the smaller amount of memory, CPU juice, LCD screen, etc.
now come over to some outdated apple hardware, that is more than 6 months old and already updated by apple.
6 months isn't that old, though his point that the PowerPCs have fallen well behind in power is quite valid. Your point that they use less juice is also quite valid, and for business users, probably more significant.
Now we'll run a bunch of tests which aren't really graphic design, but more just heavy processor benchmarking. Mix this with totally ignoring real world creation speeds in sight for things like continual rapid disc access.
Here I have to disagree. Heavy random seeking is going to be less of a factor. The things that I sit around and wait for are things like a large-radius selective Gaussian blur. Those are CPU-limited, not disk limited.
and running on an OS that will not allow photoshop to use 100% cpu when other background tasks are in use.
This is quite reasonable to include as part of the test -- if daemons really are going to be chewing down CPU, or the GUI is wasting cycles, that should be included in the test.
Your graphic designer will argue that the mac is faster in real world design creation.
I'm dubious. It comes down more to differences in Photoshop on different platforms and the CPU itself than it does in the OS itself any more.
I needn't bring in other real world graphic design issues such as windows inability to colour sync or high speed access to firewire and other important graphic design orientated technologies.
I'm not sure what the Windows situation is with color management. This was the big Mac advantage for years, yes. I do remember that MS was supposed to be putting out some sort of color management software, though I'm not sure what happened with that, or how widely supported it is.
I don't see Firewire (which you can definitely throw into a machine you're building to be a graphics system) as that much of an impediment.
Or perhaps the fact that the powerbook in question is already a 2 year old design, and even back then it still had a digital screen.
I think few will dispute that Apple has contributed far more in the way of advancements to the computing world than Microsoft has.
That doesn't mean that the Mac is necessarily currently a better platform to use if you want to do graphic design.
I love this argument -- Foo sucks because Linux has poor support for it. Seen it tons of times.
PDF isn't a closed standard, and the hard work is already done by ghostscript. PDF support sucks because Linux front ends suck compared to the Windows and Mac variants of Acrobat Reader.
Why do you expect others to write drivers for your existing hardware? And why do you whine when you didn't check to see whether your hardware was supported in the fashion you wanted before taking the Linux plunge?
I *have* drivers, you dolt. Read my message. I'm complaining about the lack of *any* support under Linux from falling back from hardware mixing to software mixing when you run out of channels -- your only option is to buy a card with so many channels that you'll never need more.
Sounds like someone convinced you to use Linux, you ran out and bought a copy (or invested a pile of time in it,) without doing some rudimentary research first. Your friend is at fault for being a zealot without considering his actions, and you are at fault for not looking into the matter a little more carefully.
I've been using Linux since the RH 5.x era, and exclusively as my desktop for years. I've used three different sound driver systems. I didn't just grab a copy off the shelf. Up until very recently, there was no free hardware mixing support at *all*, matter of fact.
Also, there already exist drivers that can mix sound together--but where do you want this to happen? In software? In hardware?
In hardware if the channels are available, otherwise fall back to software. Not that complicated.
Software solutions don't work so well because the streams may not match and may need to be resampled (a costly affair.) If you want support in the drivers you're using for the multi-channel hardware you might have (can SB Live play two completely different sample types at the same time?) then why not donate some hardware to someone who can do it or find some specs and write it yourself?
THE HARDWARE MIXING DRIVERS ARE WRITTEN! There is no *software fallback* support. And first of all, "write it yourself" is not feasible for *every* thing you lack (and I have added missing features to software on a number of occasions, thanks). The ALSA people have stated emphatically that they don't want to deal with software mixing, so they refuse to support this, and no one else has single device multi-channel (OSS/Linux calls this "multi-open") support.
http://www.alsa-project.org... where they list right on the front page they have support for multi-channel professional sound getups.
It's *hardware mixing*.
I read your question just fine--you apparently have forgotten there's this thing called Google.
No one has told you to go back to hating Arabs or any other ethnic group. On the contrary, President Bush and his administration have time after time gone out on the limb and publicly denounced the calls for general retribution against the Arab world or American Arabs.
Oh, yeah. It sure was going out on a limb denouncing race crimes against American Arabs.
And who lashed at Trent Lott, who was one of the most prominent Republicans in the U.S.A. at the time, almost without delay? Yup, President Bush.
Because it sure would have been *really* politically savvy not to, uh huh, yup.
But that wasn't good enough for the liberal press (who said anything about jews? I don't have anything against the Jews!). No, they had to tear the poor man to peaces in public. Conservative press would never have stooped that low if it had been a Democrat on the spot.
Already forgetting Clinton and a certain intern that got *far* more noise in the press, are we?
As far as Bush's alleged stupidity goes, I have only this to say: if you can get yourself elected as the President of the U.S.A. and deal with the 9/11 atrocities with the skill, restraint and diplomacy as he has done so far, you cannot be stupid.
Where the hell did you get "skill, restraint and diplomacy" from? I mean, he hasn't declared war on China or anything, but I don't see him doing anything all that brilliant. He managed to piss off multiple unrelated countries with his "Axis of Evil" speech (which Powell and others then had to frantically soften), he managed to use Christian terminology multiple times in his post-WTC speech (a Bible quote and "crusade", which has been noised about Islamic countries to his detriment), he's setting up a massive American domestic monitoring and control agency with almost no oversight, he's managed to lose most of the global antiterrorist feeling by feeding off the momentum to fuel his pet war against Iraq...how did you reach those conclusions?
Admit it. You and your liberal butt-buddies are just bitter after losing two elections and looking to lose the 2004 year presidential elections too.
*I* wanted McCain, but that's besides the point...
Oh. The possibility that they weren't just directly overlaid images never occurred to me. I figured they just slapped in some ratty-looking stock imagery.:-)
I am a bit surprised. Granted, I am no astrophysicist, but I knew that the Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. So I expected the universe to be much, much older than that.
What, 15 billion years isn't long enough for you? Sheesh.:-)
I've always found the whole "buddy programming" concept (part of XP), where one person watches the other code and points out errors, to be incredibly annoying. Maybe you're going to fix something in five seconds (a typo), and it gets called out. Maybe you have a syntax error that the compiler (which isn't getting a salary) could easily catch, but it gets called out. Plus, it makes me nervous to have people watching me and constantly interrupting my flow.
Also, you're wasting a good programmer having them sit there and call things out.
Maybe it's just me and some people really like XP...
Slashdot Mirror
Mandrake is far from going down the tubes if by saying "going down the tubes" you mean going out of business.
Um...
They had some problems, they have since fixed those problems, but are having some issues with a lack of available cash on hand to cover their debt. Due to that, they needed bankruptcy protection while they raise more cash and continue working on the next release of their OS and other products.
Ah. You *do* realize that companies that are going to go out of business act as if nothing is wrong up until the last possible minute to avoid losing customers, investors, and credit? "Lack of available cash" and asking for donations sounds to *me* like serious trouble.
I'm betting against Mandrake existing as a company in three years, but we'll see.
This has an effect on lots of business and to think that a few temporary setbacks are enough to end a great company such as Mandrake... that's nuts. I'm not claiming that Mandrake will be around forever. They may eventually buckle and fold but that won't happen any time soon.
Happened to Loki. Can definitely happen to Mandrake.
I know both Desktops on it's best using GNOME CVS HEAD and KDE CVS HEAD here.
After all, what better way to get a reasonable judgement on how consistent and usable a software package is than to use CVS builds?
GNOME is not as integrated as KDE is. Have you ever dealt with KDE and seen how all the apps are playing together ?
I wish people would stop calling this "integration". You can have apps that conform to a common IPC standard without "integrating" bits and pieces of them into each other, a la Explorer, Office, and Windows.
Usability, have you seen what happened recently to GNOME's interface it toally alienate GNOME from the rest of available applications that work and require X with any toolkit.
No. What are you talking about?
Consistency. We all know that with the ongoing versions of GNOME the developers are trying to get consistency into the applications but yet all dialogs are still looking differently.
True. The same is also same of KDE apps. Oh, maybe not the very core ones, but there are only a few of those.
There is no real pixel exact layout of the dialogs, menus and windows because many GNOME applications are written either with the GUI hardcoded
I've done this, once, to learn the toolkit reasonably well. It's quite time-consuming, and not something most people are going to want to do.
or Glade or Bonobo therefore all UI's are looking differently and makes it hard for the UI reviewer to get a structure inside.
Um...what? Glade is a *good* thing for UI design! It makes it easy to *fix* inconsistencies!
You mean high-level widgets, like Open and Save dialogs? Gnome provides standard versions of those, exactly as you want.
That's only a minor point of the whole mountain. KParts for example, every new written app follows a strict rule of KDE and embedds itself seamingless into the whole desktop.
Errr...that's fluff. It doesn't say anything.
It has a Webbrowser embedded in a Filemanager
"Microsoft did it, so it *must* be a good idea!"
GNOME has a hard and long way to go to at least keep up with a little bit of KDE's features. Keeping up with KDE itself is a lost battle.
I know one KDE fan in person. He uses GNOME/GTK apps on a regular basis, because the KDE application set size doesn't cover all his needs.
I don't know any non-KDE users that use KDE/Qt apps (with the possible exception of licq -- its Qt plugin is somewhat nicer than its gtk plugin, though if you wanted to avoid Qt by usin the gtk plugin, you certainly could).
Basically, with Mandrake looking like it's going down the tubes, there are 2 major commercial Linux desktop distros left, Redhat and SuSE.
:-)
AFAI can tell, SuSE is in even worse shape than Mandrake, at least in the States. Red Hat is the only one that's doing particularly well. I think their approach was better -- focus on the most lucrative markets quickly (business server stuff) to build profitability, then use this established foothold to start going after the desktop market. Mandrake (and to a lesser extent SuSE) tried to be pure desktop distributions at a time when Linux really wasn't all that competitive with Windows for the average user.
RedHat are popular in the states, and are "biased" towards Gnome, that is they have more Gnome hackers with experience than KDE hackers.
Yup. I could never figure out why the KDE folks can complain so bitterly about RH not throwing money at beefing up their KDE support. I don't see the GNOME folks complaining about Mandrake not supporting *them* well.
Some people will tell you that GTK is harder to program for, but in reality that's not the case, if C++ is your thing then both Qt and GTKmm are excellent.
MMmmm...I used GTKmm for a while, and while IMHO it fits better with the OO design of C++, it's really easier to use if you're familiar with GTK+ than if you're just starting from scratch. Incidently, Guillimue (I'm sure I mispelled his name) Laurent, one of the GTKmm designers, got fed up with how difficult it was to cleanly do a GNOME C++ API (unlike GTK), and ended up moving to Qt.
I think you're exaggurating when you say KDE is slower and uglier on redhat.
I've found KDE to be slower than GTK, period.
Uglier is, of course, a matter of taste.
I think the BlueCurve artwork is great, but you can always retheme it easily, and it should be no slower.
I'm not a huge fan of BlueCurve, but then I like a rather spartan interface...
First of all, VMS has a really good built in help facility. Use it.
Second of all, *why* are you going along on this one? There have to be *zillions* of old VMS junkies that are out of work that are very competent at this.
I've spent the last hour or so talking with the President of the PCI-SIG.
IIRC, isn't the PCI-SIG President also an IBM employee?
Given that, I'm kind of frusterated with the entire "why don't you simply talk with your employer (IBM) and maybe you can give them (IBM) rights to your database" bit that was aimed at you.
Perhaps it sounds a bit conspiracy theorist, but what would you *expect* from someone trying to get control of the database and screwing up to say, especially after the mass outcry from PCI-SIG members, including statements that they will seek the ouster of the responsible party? "I did it carefully and deliberately, and I'm glad about it?" Heck, no. "Gee, I simply sort of overlooked it, and I can't really be blamed, but I accept full responsibility" is more along the lines of what I'd expect, and is what I got.
It simply blows the mind, corporate politicking.
My thoughts are with you -- perhaps PCI-SIG will end up compensating you for some of your efforts over the years, by way of apology.
If you pull down your website because of a flimsy legal threat, you're really no better than them.
Bullshit.
On one hand, we have a large, well-funded organization with a legal team making threats to sue (which is what a C&D letter *is*).
On the other hand, we have a guy who has been volunteering his time and money for years to support all the people in the community. He has been making no money, and costing said organization nothing.
You can use a trademark in all sorts of situations legally.
If I publish a web page called "Apple Computer Is The Lamest Computer Company Alive And This Is Why", I'm perfectly entitled to use the phrase "Apple Computer", even though Apple owns the trademark on the phrase.
I don't see what's wrong with this, nobody objects to IBM's right to trademark "IBM".
I didn't see Jim say *anything* about PCI-SIG not being able to trademark "PCI". He was upset about not being able to use "PCI" to name, well, a list of PCI devices.
The difference is that if I make a website reading "Timeline of IBM Software Releases", *IBM* doesn't try and sue me for infringing their trademark.
The way I understand this, he was offering a great service, they had a small problem with some of the format he presented the info, they come to him in a legal way to try and get this resolved (nicely) and he desides to shut down his service. Why is he shutting down? Sounds to me like he's shutting down out of spite
I don't buy it. This might be appropriate if one were to be dealing with another company, but this guy is working out of the same sort of community spirit that powers the open source world. He wasn't making money off this. I think he more than has the right to be treated as a person, with a non-legalistic phone call first.
Furthermore, I completely understand his reaction. He's someone who has put significant personal resources into doing something which helped this company. Are they legally required to be nice in return? No. But I think that it's quite reasonable to expect them to be on simple common courtesy grounds.
Making xlib reentrant, and taking the associated performance hit, would be simply silly. Why should, say, snes9x, run slower because you want reentrant capabilities? A tiny percentage of apps have a multithreaded GUI -- you said that you were using Qt. Fine -- I could see support in Qt, but putting in Xlib would be a Bad Thing for the 99% of people out there that *don't* require multithreaded access to the GUI.
Secondly, threading a GUI program is a Bad Idea -- there's lots of interaction between threads in a GUI, and locking could turn into a nightmare. All you do in a GUI is usually check a value, paint something, and you have to lock all the values that might be shared.
Thirdly, it doesn't make sense for an event-based GUI. You have a thread that handles incoming events, maybe starts a *non-GUI* thread if you're really wedded to the idea of threading, and then gets the hell back to waiting for another event pronto so that you don't have a lot of latency on user input. Here's an example, an instance that might seem *on the surface* like a good place to do threading if X were reentrant. You have a GUI ftp program. One thread handles events, and each thread would download data and update the progress bar by repainting it. Bad idea. Now if I require a redraw, I have to sit around and wait for more data to come in. What I *really* want to have happen is have a counter for how far the progress bar is. When I require an update (periodically, and when a redraw is required), the GUI thread does it, checking the progress distance value. The non-GUI thread doing the transfer would set that value (in addition to a "dirty" flag) so that I get updates once a second or so, not 400 times a second if lots of little chunks of data are coming in. The GUI is simply a separate task from non-GUI tasks.
First they start with the fastest PC laptop available, which isn't really a laptop, but a desktop cpu crammed into a laptop.
True. I'd argue that graphic designers that really do need the extra juice are unlikely to be running laptops *anyway*, due to the smaller amount of memory, CPU juice, LCD screen, etc.
now come over to some outdated apple hardware, that is more than 6 months old and already updated by apple.
6 months isn't that old, though his point that the PowerPCs have fallen well behind in power is quite valid. Your point that they use less juice is also quite valid, and for business users, probably more significant.
Now we'll run a bunch of tests which aren't really graphic design, but more just heavy processor benchmarking. Mix this with totally ignoring real world creation speeds in sight for things like continual rapid disc access.
Here I have to disagree. Heavy random seeking is going to be less of a factor. The things that I sit around and wait for are things like a large-radius selective Gaussian blur. Those are CPU-limited, not disk limited.
and running on an OS that will not allow photoshop to use 100% cpu when other background tasks are in use.
This is quite reasonable to include as part of the test -- if daemons really are going to be chewing down CPU, or the GUI is wasting cycles, that should be included in the test.
Your graphic designer will argue that the mac is faster in real world design creation.
I'm dubious. It comes down more to differences in Photoshop on different platforms and the CPU itself than it does in the OS itself any more.
I needn't bring in other real world graphic design issues such as windows inability to colour sync or high speed access to firewire and other important graphic design orientated technologies.
I'm not sure what the Windows situation is with color management. This was the big Mac advantage for years, yes. I do remember that MS was supposed to be putting out some sort of color management software, though I'm not sure what happened with that, or how widely supported it is.
I don't see Firewire (which you can definitely throw into a machine you're building to be a graphics system) as that much of an impediment.
Or perhaps the fact that the powerbook in question is already a 2 year old design, and even back then it still had a digital screen.
I think few will dispute that Apple has contributed far more in the way of advancements to the computing world than Microsoft has.
That doesn't mean that the Mac is necessarily currently a better platform to use if you want to do graphic design.
For antialiasing, you're going to have to compile your own mozilla -- Red Hat's packages aren't built with --enable-xft.
For fonts, I say Verdana and Epsy Sans are the two best proportional on-screen text fonts. Unfortunately, neither can be freely distributed.
PDF support sucks because PDF sucks.
... where they list right on the front page they have support for multi-channel professional sound getups.
I love this argument -- Foo sucks because Linux has poor support for it. Seen it tons of times.
PDF isn't a closed standard, and the hard work is already done by ghostscript. PDF support sucks because Linux front ends suck compared to the Windows and Mac variants of Acrobat Reader.
Why do you expect others to write drivers for your existing hardware? And why do you whine when you didn't check to see whether your hardware was supported in the fashion you wanted before taking the Linux plunge?
I *have* drivers, you dolt. Read my message. I'm complaining about the lack of *any* support under Linux from falling back from hardware mixing to software mixing when you run out of channels -- your only option is to buy a card with so many channels that you'll never need more.
Sounds like someone convinced you to use Linux, you ran out and bought a copy (or invested a pile of time in it,) without doing some rudimentary research first. Your friend is at fault for being a zealot without considering his actions, and you are at fault for not looking into the matter a little more carefully.
I've been using Linux since the RH 5.x era, and exclusively as my desktop for years. I've used three different sound driver systems. I didn't just grab a copy off the shelf. Up until very recently, there was no free hardware mixing support at *all*, matter of fact.
Also, there already exist drivers that can mix sound together--but where do you want this to happen? In software? In hardware?
In hardware if the channels are available, otherwise fall back to software. Not that complicated.
Software solutions don't work so well because the streams may not match and may need to be resampled (a costly affair.) If you want support in the drivers you're using for the multi-channel hardware you might have (can SB Live play two completely different sample types at the same time?) then why not donate some hardware to someone who can do it or find some specs and write it yourself?
THE HARDWARE MIXING DRIVERS ARE WRITTEN! There is no *software fallback* support. And first of all, "write it yourself" is not feasible for *every* thing you lack (and I have added missing features to software on a number of occasions, thanks). The ALSA people have stated emphatically that they don't want to deal with software mixing, so they refuse to support this, and no one else has single device multi-channel (OSS/Linux calls this "multi-open") support.
http://www.alsa-project.org
It's *hardware mixing*.
I read your question just fine--you apparently have forgotten there's this thing called Google.
No, you misread it twice.
If they're teaching metholodogy and techniques, I don't quite see what the issue is. There aren't a lot of "gore-specific" techniques.
The 'buddy' isn't supposed to second guess you or the compiler, they are supposed to think strategically while you think at a tactical level.
Hmm...but shouldn't that have been done when APIs and rough data structures were decided upon?
Newton handwriting recog
"Egg freckles"
Considering the fact that there are precious few female respondents, one thing that needs to be fixed is an apparent gender imbalance in science.
Yup, we better institute affirmative action immediately!
I'm dubious as to the value of trying to manually "fix" society. Plus, anyone that tries is a target to blame any problems on.
I wish someone in China would set up a "Does China Block this Site" page that lets outsiders see whether a given site is blocked within the country.
It'd be interesting.
No one has told you to go back to hating Arabs or any other ethnic group. On the contrary, President Bush and his administration have time after time gone out on the limb and publicly denounced the calls for general retribution against the Arab world or American Arabs.
Oh, yeah. It sure was going out on a limb denouncing race crimes against American Arabs.
And who lashed at Trent Lott, who was one of the most prominent Republicans in the U.S.A. at the time, almost without delay? Yup, President Bush.
Because it sure would have been *really* politically savvy not to, uh huh, yup.
But that wasn't good enough for the liberal press (who said anything about jews? I don't have anything against the Jews!). No, they had to tear the poor man to peaces in public. Conservative press would never have stooped that low if it had been a Democrat on the spot.
Already forgetting Clinton and a certain intern that got *far* more noise in the press, are we?
As far as Bush's alleged stupidity goes, I have only this to say: if you can get yourself elected as the President of the U.S.A. and deal with the 9/11 atrocities with the skill, restraint and diplomacy as he has done so far, you cannot be stupid.
Where the hell did you get "skill, restraint and diplomacy" from? I mean, he hasn't declared war on China or anything, but I don't see him doing anything all that brilliant. He managed to piss off multiple unrelated countries with his "Axis of Evil" speech (which Powell and others then had to frantically soften), he managed to use Christian terminology multiple times in his post-WTC speech (a Bible quote and "crusade", which has been noised about Islamic countries to his detriment), he's setting up a massive American domestic monitoring and control agency with almost no oversight, he's managed to lose most of the global antiterrorist feeling by feeding off the momentum to fuel his pet war against Iraq...how did you reach those conclusions?
Admit it. You and your liberal butt-buddies are just bitter after losing two elections and looking to lose the 2004 year presidential elections too.
*I* wanted McCain, but that's besides the point...
however as a Newton owner I think that the some-what-larger-than-Palm device size that the Newton line sported is much more user friendly and usable.
:-)
Cmon, Apple's due for a limited-edition device. "The 25th Anniversary Newton" has a nice ring to it, no?
Oh. The possibility that they weren't just directly overlaid images never occurred to me. I figured they just slapped in some ratty-looking stock imagery. :-)
I am a bit surprised. Granted, I am no astrophysicist, but I knew that the Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. So I expected the universe to be much, much older than that.
:-)
What, 15 billion years isn't long enough for you? Sheesh.
I've always found the whole "buddy programming" concept (part of XP), where one person watches the other code and points out errors, to be incredibly annoying. Maybe you're going to fix something in five seconds (a typo), and it gets called out. Maybe you have a syntax error that the compiler (which isn't getting a salary) could easily catch, but it gets called out. Plus, it makes me nervous to have people watching me and constantly interrupting my flow.
Also, you're wasting a good programmer having them sit there and call things out.
Maybe it's just me and some people really like XP...
When you walk into the lion's den, you need more than a g-string on.
.sig material.
Slashdot is just full of good
So any time there is an article about Microsoft on Slashdot, I am to assume they did something wrong.
:-)
Well...usually, but they have lost the occasional anti-trust lawsuit...