The newest winamp plays ogg, and that's very widely distributed. "Widely known" doesn't have to mean that they have HEARD of it, but only that they can play it. I think it's safe to say that the majority of users have winamp, realplayer, or quicktime. It doesn't matter if they know what the format is, they do have the ability to play it.
This is probably what most people intend to do. There's a fry's right down the street from me that I go to all the time and I've heard several people asking the sales guy about the linux desktop. They're usually asking why it comes with linux and if they can put windows on instead. My favorite quote was "well, linux is hard to use isn't it?". Despite the fact that it was right there in front of them to try!
Unfortunately, the sales guy was in "whatever you want" mode. He just agreed with them and said they could install windows (and then tried futily to explain to these people how they install windows). I'm pretty sure they chose another PC.
Well it depends on what you're doing, I guess. At work I tend to have 10 windows open for the same program, all with the same icon. It's a pain to alt+tab through those. So it's better for me to keep all of those on one desktop (they're not maximized), the browser on another, the chat stuff on another, email on another, one for notes/todo list type stuff, and one misc. Then I can use one quick shortcut key to go to any specific task.
The "Show Desktop" feature isn't useful since the main reason you'd want to show the desktop is to open something and as soon as you open or restore a window Windows forgets the other window settings you had. So "Show Desktop" minimizes everything, you open a window, you click "Show Desktop" again and it just minimizes your new window.:)
But I agree, the desktop thing is a weak point since I rarely use it. I still would like to see multiple desktops used more frequently, though on OSes other than *nix.
I know, it pissed me off too. I think they're using some kernel hack for performance or something. More tricks to make their software look better. And as usual, it causes problems.
I've never used litestep, so I don't know the exact behaviour you're talking about, but I think if you set up your desktop in KDE/Gnome to be twice as wide you can set it up to scroll it when you move the mouse to the edge of the screen. So you're not switching between multiple desktops, you're just scrolling across a really big desktop. I personally never liked this setup, but I think a lot of people do prefer it.
That works with some things, yes. I used to have one of those extended keyboards with the extra buttons for forward, backwards, etc. I had one bound to winamp. That worked great because winamp doesn't allow multiple instances (by default anyway) and it came up immediately. But for things like mozilla, it just opens a new window. And what happens when you want to get to the desktop? That's why I rarely use the desktop now. I do everything through the quicklaunch or start menu or shortcuts. The desktop is just too hard to get to. In linux I just hide the desktop icons. I never used em and they just get in the way of the background image.:)
I think it probably is. At the company I used to work for I had an ATI card with it's own program. It was pretty good, but it had a few issues. Every once in a while I would lose a window. And if you were debugging with MSVC 6.0 and hit a breakpoint you would be locked onto the current desktop until you started the program again. It really sucks if you happen to be on the wrong desktop in that case. Especially since you can't shut down while debugging and you can't end the task while debugging. You pretty much have to hard-reboot. I blame that on low-level hacks in MSVC, though.
Argh. I'm tired of hearing people say that the multidesk features are too complicated. They're NOT. They're only confusing when people click em before they know what they do. If you included that in a little "tour of KDE" like windows does then I really don't think it would be a problem. Everyone I've ever showed that to has understood it, and they weren't all computer geeks.
Everyone says we need more unique features, but then when we do have a good feature they say it's just confusing and we shouldn't use it. Every new feature needs to be learned. That will always be the case. You don't throw out good ideas because people haven't seen them yet. You show people the new ideas so they can make their lives easier too.
Try this with 30 windows open. If you have and you still prefer it, that's fine. But I go insane. I like being able to press a single key combo to bring up my browser, email, documentation, VIM, dev. work, or chat stuff. It saves me an incredible amount of time and makes it much easier to see what I'm doing. I feel like I'm in the stone age without multiple desktops.
I agree. But I think what they mean is easy to learn, not easy to use. Power users like *nix because it gives you a lot of flexibility and advanced features like multiple desktops and good shells (dos is practically useless). But those features aren't easy to LEARN for, say, your mother.
I still think if all someone does is use Office and send email/browse the net then Linux is definitely easy enough. Just hide the stuff they won't understand and tell em the start button looks a little different now. Most people won't notice the difference.
I overheard someone at Fry's who was about to buy a computer with linux on it and they said "Linux is hard to use, right?". I was thinking "There's a demo right here, see for yourself!". People really need to try it.
Win2k doesn't have it's own pwertools. Powertools up until winXP has been a combination of tools for all win32 OSes. The WinXP one does have a virtual desktop util that's decent (probably the best one available for windows) but isn't nearly as good as in linux. The previous powertools did not have multidesk utils. I have a demo of a program called "enable" that i get by with, but it's definitely not worth paying for. It has some major flaws.
The eclipse IDE is supposed to be extremely pluggable. How does natively compiling it affect that? Do you have to compile the plugins with the IDE? Or can you still just drop the.class files somewhere?
With blender, screw actually manipulating objects, just figuring out what's in front of you can be a pain
Exactly. When I first tries blender, I had absolutely no idea what I was doing. I literally couldn't do ANYTHING or figure out what I was looking at. The icons don't make sense and there are a lot of keystroke functions that don't have icons (important ones even). It wasn't until I looked at a tutorial that I was able to do anything with it. I simply don't have time to learn how to do anything even simple.
Google can be used to illegaly hack into computers (possibly stealing copyrighted information). Google must be shut down and all of its users owe us lots of money.
Also, I think you should do "How to use a desktop" or "how to use a spreadsheet" or "how to use an office suite". Not "how to use windows" and "how to use excel" and "how to use microsoft office". Teaching people one specific OS or one specific program is bad, not only because they won't know how to use other OSes or programs, but because later on microsoft might change that program. What happens when you teach someone "click this button" and later on the button disappears and it's a menu now? You need to teach them what that button is called, what it does, and why they're clicking it. That way, later on if they're using another program or another version of the same program they know what to look for. That's a LOT more useful.
I think you misunderstood the code. Maybe it was the formatting screwup that confused you. I didn't assign to a const. I assigned a const literal to a value that was of type "blah", which was defined as an int. The compiler will not say anything about that because it's completely valid code. But in that case what I wanted to do was use blah as a type that holds only one of those values I defined (VAL_1 or VAL_2). So instead of using a typedef and some consts, I use an enum. If you try to assign a const literal to a value that's been declared as of type "enum blah" then the compiler should issue a warning.
Damnit, it stripped out my code tags...sorry about that...apparently i was supposed to use ecode...should've rtfm (right below the post comment form...)
Yes, but if you use the following:
typedef blah int;
const blah VAL_1=1;
const blah VAL_2=2;
blah val;
val=3;
the compiler probably won't tell you a thing (at least the ones I've used haven't). val is an int, and 3 is an int, so it's valid. However, with a modern C++ compiler (not sure about C, but maybe so with that too) this code will generate at least a warning:
enum blah {VAL_1=1, VAL_2};
blah val;
val=3;
That code works the same in the output program as defining constants would have, but it's easier to write, easier to read (you can clearly see that those values belong to the blah type and are valid only for variables of that type), and it has the added benefit of compile-time type-checking.
If you want strictly enforced enums you could always implement a class for that with the same overhead you talked about before. It would take a few minutes at most. Of course you couldn't do that very easily in C, so I can see how it might annoy you that there's no easy way to use strictly-enforced enums in that language. But I do like the implementation in C++.
I've found that most people in my classes who can't program have never even heard of the K&R book, and would probably be hard-pressed to tell you who K&R are. I guess the book can only help if people read it.;)
The mistake I would junk is allowing enum {fred=36, bill=19, joe=333} ; Which confuses predefined constants with the classic enumeration. The cost saving of a lookup table to convert the 0, 1, 2 sequence is tiny, and the knock on effects are horrible.
The advantage of enums over constants is type checking by the compiler (warnings are issued if you try to assign a constant to a variable declared as an enum) and also warnings issued when you do a switch on an enum (as in switch(enum varBlah)). This might not be true in C, but it is in C++ and I find it useful. It's merely a convenience. It has no effect on code output.
I've found that enums in other languages which enforce the sequential order and must start at 0 are pretty much useless in most cases.
Slashdot Mirror
The newest winamp plays ogg, and that's very widely distributed. "Widely known" doesn't have to mean that they have HEARD of it, but only that they can play it. I think it's safe to say that the majority of users have winamp, realplayer, or quicktime. It doesn't matter if they know what the format is, they do have the ability to play it.
This is probably what most people intend to do. There's a fry's right down the street from me that I go to all the time and I've heard several people asking the sales guy about the linux desktop. They're usually asking why it comes with linux and if they can put windows on instead. My favorite quote was "well, linux is hard to use isn't it?". Despite the fact that it was right there in front of them to try!
Unfortunately, the sales guy was in "whatever you want" mode. He just agreed with them and said they could install windows (and then tried futily to explain to these people how they install windows). I'm pretty sure they chose another PC.
Well it depends on what you're doing, I guess. At work I tend to have 10 windows open for the same program, all with the same icon. It's a pain to alt+tab through those. So it's better for me to keep all of those on one desktop (they're not maximized), the browser on another, the chat stuff on another, email on another, one for notes/todo list type stuff, and one misc. Then I can use one quick shortcut key to go to any specific task.
The "Show Desktop" feature isn't useful since the main reason you'd want to show the desktop is to open something and as soon as you open or restore a window Windows forgets the other window settings you had. So "Show Desktop" minimizes everything, you open a window, you click "Show Desktop" again and it just minimizes your new window. :)
But I agree, the desktop thing is a weak point since I rarely use it. I still would like to see multiple desktops used more frequently, though on OSes other than *nix.
I know, it pissed me off too. I think they're using some kernel hack for performance or something. More tricks to make their software look better. And as usual, it causes problems.
I've never used litestep, so I don't know the exact behaviour you're talking about, but I think if you set up your desktop in KDE/Gnome to be twice as wide you can set it up to scroll it when you move the mouse to the edge of the screen. So you're not switching between multiple desktops, you're just scrolling across a really big desktop. I personally never liked this setup, but I think a lot of people do prefer it.
That works with some things, yes. I used to have one of those extended keyboards with the extra buttons for forward, backwards, etc. I had one bound to winamp. That worked great because winamp doesn't allow multiple instances (by default anyway) and it came up immediately. But for things like mozilla, it just opens a new window. And what happens when you want to get to the desktop? That's why I rarely use the desktop now. I do everything through the quicklaunch or start menu or shortcuts. The desktop is just too hard to get to. In linux I just hide the desktop icons. I never used em and they just get in the way of the background image. :)
I think it probably is. At the company I used to work for I had an ATI card with it's own program. It was pretty good, but it had a few issues. Every once in a while I would lose a window. And if you were debugging with MSVC 6.0 and hit a breakpoint you would be locked onto the current desktop until you started the program again. It really sucks if you happen to be on the wrong desktop in that case. Especially since you can't shut down while debugging and you can't end the task while debugging. You pretty much have to hard-reboot. I blame that on low-level hacks in MSVC, though.
Thanks, I'll give it a shot. This demo has expired. It says it's a 30-day trial, but it hasn't stopped working yet so I kept using it. :)
Argh. I'm tired of hearing people say that the multidesk features are too complicated. They're NOT. They're only confusing when people click em before they know what they do. If you included that in a little "tour of KDE" like windows does then I really don't think it would be a problem. Everyone I've ever showed that to has understood it, and they weren't all computer geeks.
Everyone says we need more unique features, but then when we do have a good feature they say it's just confusing and we shouldn't use it. Every new feature needs to be learned. That will always be the case. You don't throw out good ideas because people haven't seen them yet. You show people the new ideas so they can make their lives easier too.
Try this with 30 windows open. If you have and you still prefer it, that's fine. But I go insane. I like being able to press a single key combo to bring up my browser, email, documentation, VIM, dev. work, or chat stuff. It saves me an incredible amount of time and makes it much easier to see what I'm doing. I feel like I'm in the stone age without multiple desktops.
I agree. But I think what they mean is easy to learn, not easy to use. Power users like *nix because it gives you a lot of flexibility and advanced features like multiple desktops and good shells (dos is practically useless). But those features aren't easy to LEARN for, say, your mother.
I still think if all someone does is use Office and send email/browse the net then Linux is definitely easy enough. Just hide the stuff they won't understand and tell em the start button looks a little different now. Most people won't notice the difference.
I overheard someone at Fry's who was about to buy a computer with linux on it and they said "Linux is hard to use, right?". I was thinking "There's a demo right here, see for yourself!". People really need to try it.
Win2k doesn't have it's own pwertools. Powertools up until winXP has been a combination of tools for all win32 OSes. The WinXP one does have a virtual desktop util that's decent (probably the best one available for windows) but isn't nearly as good as in linux. The previous powertools did not have multidesk utils. I have a demo of a program called "enable" that i get by with, but it's definitely not worth paying for. It has some major flaws.
The eclipse IDE is supposed to be extremely pluggable. How does natively compiling it affect that? Do you have to compile the plugins with the IDE? Or can you still just drop the .class files somewhere?
With blender, screw actually manipulating objects, just figuring out what's in front of you can be a pain
Exactly. When I first tries blender, I had absolutely no idea what I was doing. I literally couldn't do ANYTHING or figure out what I was looking at. The icons don't make sense and there are a lot of keystroke functions that don't have icons (important ones even). It wasn't until I looked at a tutorial that I was able to do anything with it. I simply don't have time to learn how to do anything even simple.
Google can be used to illegaly hack into computers (possibly stealing copyrighted information). Google must be shut down and all of its users owe us lots of money.
Also, I think you should do "How to use a desktop" or "how to use a spreadsheet" or "how to use an office suite". Not "how to use windows" and "how to use excel" and "how to use microsoft office". Teaching people one specific OS or one specific program is bad, not only because they won't know how to use other OSes or programs, but because later on microsoft might change that program. What happens when you teach someone "click this button" and later on the button disappears and it's a menu now? You need to teach them what that button is called, what it does, and why they're clicking it. That way, later on if they're using another program or another version of the same program they know what to look for. That's a LOT more useful.
I think you misunderstood the code. Maybe it was the formatting screwup that confused you. I didn't assign to a const. I assigned a const literal to a value that was of type "blah", which was defined as an int. The compiler will not say anything about that because it's completely valid code. But in that case what I wanted to do was use blah as a type that holds only one of those values I defined (VAL_1 or VAL_2). So instead of using a typedef and some consts, I use an enum. If you try to assign a const literal to a value that's been declared as of type "enum blah" then the compiler should issue a warning.
Damnit, it stripped out my code tags...sorry about that...apparently i was supposed to use ecode...should've rtfm (right below the post comment form...)
Yeah, I'm thinking that this would only help if they took your hard drive without the motherboard. Is it password-protected at boot, or what?
Yes, but if you use the following:
typedef blah int; const blah VAL_1=1; const blah VAL_2=2; blah val; val=3; the compiler probably won't tell you a thing (at least the ones I've used haven't). val is an int, and 3 is an int, so it's valid. However, with a modern C++ compiler (not sure about C, but maybe so with that too) this code will generate at least a warning: enum blah {VAL_1=1, VAL_2}; blah val; val=3;
That code works the same in the output program as defining constants would have, but it's easier to write, easier to read (you can clearly see that those values belong to the blah type and are valid only for variables of that type), and it has the added benefit of compile-time type-checking.
If you want strictly enforced enums you could always implement a class for that with the same overhead you talked about before. It would take a few minutes at most. Of course you couldn't do that very easily in C, so I can see how it might annoy you that there's no easy way to use strictly-enforced enums in that language. But I do like the implementation in C++.
I've found that most people in my classes who can't program have never even heard of the K&R book, and would probably be hard-pressed to tell you who K&R are. I guess the book can only help if people read it. ;)
Oh, and you can always just declare an enum without values. It'll default to 0,1,2,...
The mistake I would junk is allowing enum {fred=36, bill=19, joe=333} ; Which confuses predefined constants with the classic enumeration. The cost saving of a lookup table to convert the 0, 1, 2 sequence is tiny, and the knock on effects are horrible.
The advantage of enums over constants is type checking by the compiler (warnings are issued if you try to assign a constant to a variable declared as an enum) and also warnings issued when you do a switch on an enum (as in switch(enum varBlah)). This might not be true in C, but it is in C++ and I find it useful. It's merely a convenience. It has no effect on code output.
I've found that enums in other languages which enforce the sequential order and must start at 0 are pretty much useless in most cases.
Never underestimate cheap people. That's the last thing I'm gonna say. :)