I don't really see X being that out of date. It doesn't support transparency and shadows, but aren't those things just eye candy? If it was 2005, and Longhorn had fully OpenGL-accelerated drawing with incredibly rich graphics in apps, and X was still where it is now, then yes, it would be behind. But fortunately, it looks like we'll have Longhorn's features sometime late in 2004, way before Longhorn even comes out:)
We are all looking forward to your patch. Just post it to bugs.kde.org and a maintainer will get right on integrating it. Do you think you can have it done before the KDE 3.3 string freeze? The translators need some time to do their work. Oh, and make sure you don't break any of the Qt themes --- the theme developers have enough work to do as it is, dealing with the new KWin API, and Qt 3.3 API changes. At least, don't break Plastik, because that'll probably be the default in 3.3.
Well his assertion about drivers are wrong. The NVIDIA drivers (except for questionable stability on certain configurations) are every bit as fast as the Windows ones, and support the same features. So if X had intrinsic weaknesses that made it impossible to write good drivers, than the NVIDIA driver shouldn't exist.
You say X doesn't suck, but then explain how it doesn't fully utilize graphics cards. ----- X doesn't not fully utilize graphics cards because it can't, but because manufacturers don't make optimized graphics drivers for it. If you use vendor-written ones like NVIDIA's, you'll see what X can really do given quality drivers. With proper drivers, X's drawing performance is easily comparable to the GDI's, an for stuff like bit-blits, it attains performance that you can only get in the GDI by using DirectX.
X doesn't work. I hate dragging a simple window and have a trail of tutti-fruity after it, ----- Are you using GNOME by any chance? Because I never have that problem in KDE. In fact, KDE behaves better than WinXP in this respect, because I do see expose lag in Windows sometimes. I'm running 3.1.4 on a P4 2GHz with NVIDIA drivers.
or waiting 5 seconds for a menu to popup. ----- I've never had to wait 5 seconds for a menu to pop up. If you're seeing that, there is something wrong with your configuraton. Anyway, X has nothing to do with how long it takes a menu to pop up. X is just the drawing layer. As a drawing layer, it is quite fast. But even if it was slow, it still wouldn't take long to draw a menu, which is basically just a color fill and some bit-blits. If your menus are drawing slowly, it's because your application is taking its sweet time responding to input events. GNOME has problems with this. It won't load icons until the first time they are actually used. That means when you open a menu for the first time in a given app, you can see each icon being drawn as they are loaded one at a time from disk! Again, this is a problem with the app, not X.
Here's the part where you blame the window manager, or the graphics library, or the desktop environment. ----- Well, X *is* the graphics library, and it's fast, which is all you can really ask of a graphics library. So it *is* the fault of the window manager or DE. On my machine, KDE is about as fast as WinXP (except for some apps that haven't been well optimized for display performance, like Konqueror), while GNOME, Mozilla, and OpenOffice are dog-slow. If they both are using the same X, why does KDE run fast while the others don't? Start up Qt designer and abuse the UI. Try resizing with the resize bump in the corner. Try moving windows over it. Qt Designer has a complex UI with lots of widgets. But it performs just as fast as the best Windows apps. That's why X can't be the problem! Maybe its X's fault for not making it easier to write fast apps, but that's different from saying that X is slow.
Hold on while we hack on yet another "extension," ------- Let me guess. You're not a programmer, right? An extension is not a "hack." An extension is a way of extending a codebase to support a feature that was not concieved when it was originally written. An extension is a clean way to extend a codebase's functionality while preserving compatibility. A hack is entirely different.
and then meanwhile in a Microsoft discussion complain that you can't hack on things that weren't in the core design of Windows. ---- Because Windows wasn't designed to be extendible. X was designed from the beginning to be extendible. Thus, new features were added on cleanly. Windows wasn't, and thus new features were sometimes hacks.
reality check: IRA FALKLANDS ------ Those things never threatened the stability of the government itself, just the stability of outlying regions. When I'm talking about stability, I'm talking about having no civil wars since the 1600s, and having the same gradually evolving Parlimentary system since 1688.
and then this earlier post about the british leaving behind colonies in such a good shape (because presumabley they weren't as corrupt as the french). don't make me laugh. --------- I never said anything about the British colonies! I dislike the British colonial period moreso than most people, because my parents are from the sub-continent. But the fact that the British did some bad things abroad does not change the fact that they have a tradition of freedom within their own country. The United States grew and prospered through genocide and slavery. Those are regretable things that happened in the past, and do not change the fact that the United States has a deep tradition of freedom.
The fdo.o X server is most likely going to be the successor to XFree86, even if development of XF86 continues. They fd.o X server project is led by Keith Packard, who did a lot of the work on Render and Xft, basically bringing XFree86 into the 20th century. He is also getting help from people who really know what they are doing, like Jim Gettys. They are working on the following features:
- A core X server based on the lightweight kdrive codebase (formerly TinyX). - Back-buffering of all windows, like OS X. This will enable OS X-style fancy window effects like shadows and whatnot. - OpenGL accelerated 2D rendering. This is a big step up from Apple's system, because it will accelerate actual drawing via OpenGL, not just window compositing. As a result of this, there is a lot of talk about seperating OpenGL from the X server, and allowing the X server to be just another OpenGL app running on top of a low-level OpenGL acceleration layer.
BBC World Service is too far to the left for my taste >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's why its pretty good:)
Just kidding. I don't know if there are any good moderate or right-leaning TV stations in the US. CNN is pretty good if you just watch the headline loop. Fox is more right-leaning, but they tend to get mired in the sensationalist stuff as well. And local news is right out, its nothing but sensationalist stuff. There is, of course, always Google News.
The monarchy is a cultural institution. Semantically, they are indeed a political institution, but as you say, they have no political involvement. Yet they remain an important part of British society. Why? Because their role in British culture far outstrips its minor role in politics. Hence, it can be considered a cultural institution.
Nothing that has happened in the past 200-300 years every threatened the stability of the British government. While the British did many things that caused instability and chaos, at no time was the government itself really in any danger. There haven't even been any civil wars in Great Britain since the 1600s. In this sense, the British government is remarkably stable, compared to say the French government over the same time period.
The British do have a very old democratic tradition, at least for its own people. The Parlaiment was an important force by the early 17th century, and took supremacy from the king after the glorious revolution of 1688. The British have done many things to tarnish this tradition of freedom, but I still assert that the tradition remains intact. The United States, too, has done many things that go against the principles of freedom and democracy, but it is still legitimate to say that it has an important democratic tradition.
Plenty of people are murdered or raped every day, but they don't get media coverage. >>>>>>>>>>>> Jefferson said that everyone is created equal, not that everyone is equally interesting. It's foolish to pretend otherwise. Everyone is more affected when something happens to someone they know, either personally or publically. The majority of the public is enjoys watching sports, movies, and TV, or listening to music. They know the personalities involved with these. Ergo, when something happens to one of them, they care about it.
Personally, I don't watch sports or TV all that much. I couldn't really care less what happens to Kobe Bryant. But, I am a devout liberal, so I like to follow the Limbaugh story to see if he gets justice. If the media breaks a story about Ann Coulter having a major heroine addiction, I know I'd watch intently. I also am a programmer and follow the OSS movement closely, so the deaths of the Ximian employees affected me. So please realize that you're not any different from anybody else. You follow certain things, and you'd watch the media closely if a major story broke concerning the things you care about.
PS> If you think the US media spends too much time covering things *you* don't care about, try the BBC. It's pretty good in my experience.
The United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy. It is very much a political thing. Despite the Crown's very limited role in politics they are by defination involved as the Head of State (not Head of Government). >>>>>>>>>>> Huh? You declare that the Monarchy is very much political, and then immediatelyl admit that it has a very limited role in politics. Which is it?
The "most stable" is a matter of opinion but I'll let that stand. >>>>>>>>>> FI said "one of" the most stable. The British government has been remarkably stable for hundreds of years. Unlike France, the democratization of Britain came not through a bloody revolution, but a gradual transition.
Have you ever heard of the Roman Republic? England wasn't a member of that. >>>>>>>>> I didn't say first, I said oldest. Generally, when we talk about the oldest of some thing, we do not consider things that no longer exist, like the Roman Republic.
Locke and Hobbes provided many ideas for the American Government. But so did Plato, Aristotle and numerous philosophers in France during the Enlightenment. >>>>>>>>>>> Yes other philosophers did influence the Founding Fathers. Some directly and others indirectly. But the primary philosophical basis for the American government was British philosophy.
England does not have a monopoly on those ideas >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t; Did I claim it did?
and at the time, did not practice them. >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t; While Great Britain did not practice the precise philosophy espoused by Lock and others, many of those philosophers' ideas were derived from British practice. Great Britain has been a free society for hundreds of years, even under the monarchy, and much existing pratice was codified by its philosophers.
If I recall correctly you still have a good deal of the Parthenon in the British Museum and the Greek have been asking for those pieces back for years. >>>>>>>>>>>> What's your point? I am not claiming that Britain is faultless. Indeed, as someone of Indian descent, I have an innate dislike of Britain and its colonial period. However, I do recognize a good thing when I see it. Great Britain has a very proud and rich history, and a tradition of freedom. The monarchy is a part of that, and is a cultural institution that should remain in place as a reminder of the nation's glory.
Huh, I didn't know that. But I didn't say that GB had the oldest monarchy. I said it had one of the oldest democratic traditions. Even when the country was an absolute monarchy, it was still a relatively free society.
Tim Breners-Lee *is* English. He was born in London and graduated from Oxford. While ARPANET was an American project, Breners-Lee worked on the web while he was at CERN, and it was first made available at CERN in 1990.
It's not political. Politically, the British monarchy doesn't do much of anything. It is mostly a cultural thing. The monarchy is a cherished institution of Great Britain. It represents the history and culture of a great country. It has endured for hundreds of years as one of the most stable governments in the West. The British monarchy has one of the oldest democratic traditions in the world, and Britain gave birth to the philosophers from which our founding fathers derived their inspiration. Getting rid of the British monarchy would be like getting rid of the monuments of Greece, because they take up space that could be put to better use.
There is no need for everything in the world to be cold and logical. If a country wants to hold onto a 'silly' institution as a symbol of their nation, so be it.
Qt/Mac uses Quartz to do the font rendering, so the kernel problem is probably just the fonts the author is using for the screenshot.
And open source does font rendering phenomenally well. I've got a Dell UXGA LCD, and Freetype looks much better than Cleartype on this screen, given good fonts (like Vera). In my experience, OS X doesn't hint agressively enough, which makes things look fuzzy and makes the stroke weight uneven. Meanwhile, Cleartype hints too aggressively, which really distorts letter shapes. Freetype maintains a nice balance between accurate shapes and good contrast.
The Qt/Mac port looks almost identical to Aqua, except for when Apple changes major things (like the tabs in 10.3) and TrollTech needs to catch up. The Qt/Windows port look native as well.
I do know that the Shah helped modernize Iran. >>>>>>>>>>> And Hitler did great things for Germany's economy, what's your point?
I do know that the Ayatollah murdered Americans >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t; Which Ayatollah? I have not heard any reference to the current Ayatollah (Khamenei) murdering Americans. And the only story I know of involving the previous one (Khomeini) was not so much him murdering Americans, but failing to prevent others from murdering Americans.
and has not taken steps to prevent terrorism in its own country. >>>>>>>>>>>> Two reasons why Iran does not take more steps to prevent terrorism.
First, it's not their problem. The US is no friend of Iran, and continues to impose sanctions upon it. Why should they help us? There are a lot of places in the world where bad things are happening, and a lot more people are dying than died in 9/11, yet we do nothing. Why should we expect the whole world to now make our well-being a priority? I often hear people in the US say: "A country does not have friends or enemies, just interests," to rationalize the US's foreign policy. Well, it's not in Iran's interest to cooperate in helping the US's terrorism problem any more than it has to.
Second, Iran has condemmed the sort of terrorism commited against the US. Around the world, nobody really supports the actions of Al-Queda and similar organizations except a small contingent of militants. Killing random people in a far-away country with no particular goal in mind doesn't strike anybody as logical.
However, Iran (and most conservative Muslim countries) does draw a distinction between terrorists like Al-Queda and freedom-fighters. The terrorist organizations that the US says Iran supports are ones that operate in Israel, and many consider them to be freedom-fighters. As a person who hates violence, I cannot personally justify those who take terrorist actions against Israel.
On the other hand, the majority of Americans should support such actions. If they had no problem killing thousands of civilians to unseat Saddam, so, as they believed, Iraq could have a better future, they should have no problem with Palestinians killing civilians to gain their independence, and secure a better future for themselves.
I know that the Iranians will never be a major player on the world stage because of the militant religious attitude of the Ayatollah. >>>>>>>>>>> If the Ayatollah stays in power, that is probably true. Government's influenced by religion are a curse upon the world, and continue to hold back progress. However, there is nothing to say that the Ayatollah will remain in power. The theocracy in Iran is not entrenched like a dictator. There are already significant democratic organs within the country. Like China, the most likely outcome within Iran will be a gradual changing of attitudes among the people, and a change in government as a result of those attitudes.
In a country like Iran (and Islamic countries in general), that is really the only model that will work. Change must come from the inside, not forced from the outside. In Iran, people made a theocratic government because that's what they wanted. You can put them into a democracy, but then you have the hipocracy of a free country where people are not free to chose the structure of their society. Could you imagine the chaos that would have resulted if we had taken Christian societies, at the height of the Church's power, and forced them to throw the Church out of public life? Heck, we're still having that problem in the United States, trying to get the Church out of our courthouses!
Its funny. There is a "World's Naughtiest Outtakes" show on TV. It is so heavily censored that a lot of the segments don't even make any sense, because half the words are bleeped out!
Slashdot Mirror
All they have to do to get TIA implemented throughout the country is:
Rename it TnA and then hold a referrendum.
I don't really see X being that out of date. It doesn't support transparency and shadows, but aren't those things just eye candy? If it was 2005, and Longhorn had fully OpenGL-accelerated drawing with incredibly rich graphics in apps, and X was still where it is now, then yes, it would be behind. But fortunately, it looks like we'll have Longhorn's features sometime late in 2004, way before Longhorn even comes out :)
We are all looking forward to your patch. Just post it to bugs.kde.org and a maintainer will get right on integrating it. Do you think you can have it done before the KDE 3.3 string freeze? The translators need some time to do their work. Oh, and make sure you don't break any of the Qt themes --- the theme developers have enough work to do as it is, dealing with the new KWin API, and Qt 3.3 API changes. At least, don't break Plastik, because that'll probably be the default in 3.3.
Thanks!
Actually, the new fd.o X server is based on the kdrive (aka TinyX) codebase. No need for two seperate servers.
Well his assertion about drivers are wrong. The NVIDIA drivers (except for questionable stability on certain configurations) are every bit as fast as the Windows ones, and support the same features. So if X had intrinsic weaknesses that made it impossible to write good drivers, than the NVIDIA driver shouldn't exist.
You say X doesn't suck, but then explain how it doesn't fully utilize graphics cards.
-----
X doesn't not fully utilize graphics cards because it can't, but because manufacturers don't make optimized graphics drivers for it. If you use vendor-written ones like NVIDIA's, you'll see what X can really do given quality drivers. With proper drivers, X's drawing performance is easily comparable to the GDI's, an for stuff like bit-blits, it attains performance that you can only get in the GDI by using DirectX.
X doesn't work. I hate dragging a simple window and have a trail of tutti-fruity after it,
-----
Are you using GNOME by any chance? Because I never have that problem in KDE. In fact, KDE behaves better than WinXP in this respect, because I do see expose lag in Windows sometimes. I'm running 3.1.4 on a P4 2GHz with NVIDIA drivers.
or waiting 5 seconds for a menu to popup.
-----
I've never had to wait 5 seconds for a menu to pop up. If you're seeing that, there is something wrong with your configuraton. Anyway, X has nothing to do with how long it takes a menu to pop up. X is just the drawing layer. As a drawing layer, it is quite fast. But even if it was slow, it still wouldn't take long to draw a menu, which is basically just a color fill and some bit-blits. If your menus are drawing slowly, it's because your application is taking its sweet time responding to input events. GNOME has problems with this. It won't load icons until the first time they are actually used. That means when you open a menu for the first time in a given app, you can see each icon being drawn as they are loaded one at a time from disk! Again, this is a problem with the app, not X.
Here's the part where you blame the window manager, or the graphics library, or the desktop environment.
-----
Well, X *is* the graphics library, and it's fast, which is all you can really ask of a graphics library. So it *is* the fault of the window manager or DE. On my machine, KDE is about as fast as WinXP (except for some apps that haven't been well optimized for display performance, like Konqueror), while GNOME, Mozilla, and OpenOffice are dog-slow. If they both are using the same X, why does KDE run fast while the others don't? Start up Qt designer and abuse the UI. Try resizing with the resize bump in the corner. Try moving windows over it. Qt Designer has a complex UI with lots of widgets. But it performs just as fast as the best Windows apps. That's why X can't be the problem! Maybe its X's fault for not making it easier to write fast apps, but that's different from saying that X is slow.
Hold on while we hack on yet another "extension,"
-------
Let me guess. You're not a programmer, right? An extension is not a "hack." An extension is a way of extending a codebase to support a feature that was not concieved when it was originally written. An extension is a clean way to extend a codebase's functionality while preserving compatibility. A hack is entirely different.
and then meanwhile in a Microsoft discussion complain that you can't hack on things that weren't in the core design of Windows.
----
Because Windows wasn't designed to be extendible. X was designed from the beginning to be extendible. Thus, new features were added on cleanly. Windows wasn't, and thus new features were sometimes hacks.
the british government is so stable and great
reality check:
IRA
FALKLANDS
------
Those things never threatened the stability of the government itself, just the stability of outlying regions. When I'm talking about stability, I'm talking about having no civil wars since the 1600s, and having the same gradually evolving Parlimentary system since 1688.
and then this earlier post about the british leaving behind colonies in such a good shape (because presumabley they weren't as corrupt as the french). don't make me laugh.
---------
I never said anything about the British colonies! I dislike the British colonial period moreso than most people, because my parents are from the sub-continent. But the fact that the British did some bad things abroad does not change the fact that they have a tradition of freedom within their own country. The United States grew and prospered through genocide and slavery. Those are regretable things that happened in the past, and do not change the fact that the United States has a deep tradition of freedom.
The fdo.o X server is most likely going to be the successor to XFree86, even if development of XF86 continues. They fd.o X server project is led by Keith Packard, who did a lot of the work on Render and Xft, basically bringing XFree86 into the 20th century. He is also getting help from people who really know what they are doing, like Jim Gettys. They are working on the following features:
- A core X server based on the lightweight kdrive codebase (formerly TinyX).
- Back-buffering of all windows, like OS X. This will enable OS X-style fancy window effects like shadows and whatnot.
- OpenGL accelerated 2D rendering. This is a big step up from Apple's system, because it will accelerate actual drawing via OpenGL, not just window compositing. As a result of this, there is a lot of talk about seperating OpenGL from the X server, and allowing the X server to be just another OpenGL app running on top of a low-level OpenGL acceleration layer.
BBC World Service is too far to the left for my taste :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That's why its pretty good
Just kidding. I don't know if there are any good moderate or right-leaning TV stations in the US. CNN is pretty good if you just watch the headline loop. Fox is more right-leaning, but they tend to get mired in the sensationalist stuff as well. And local news is right out, its nothing but sensationalist stuff. There is, of course, always Google News.
The monarchy is a cultural institution. Semantically, they are indeed a political institution, but as you say, they have no political involvement. Yet they remain an important part of British society. Why? Because their role in British culture far outstrips its minor role in politics. Hence, it can be considered a cultural institution.
Nothing that has happened in the past 200-300 years every threatened the stability of the British government. While the British did many things that caused instability and chaos, at no time was the government itself really in any danger. There haven't even been any civil wars in Great Britain since the 1600s. In this sense, the British government is remarkably stable, compared to say the French government over the same time period.
The British do have a very old democratic tradition, at least for its own people. The Parlaiment was an important force by the early 17th century, and took supremacy from the king after the glorious revolution of 1688. The British have done many things to tarnish this tradition of freedom, but I still assert that the tradition remains intact. The United States, too, has done many things that go against the principles of freedom and democracy, but it is still legitimate to say that it has an important democratic tradition.
Plenty of people are murdered or raped every day, but they don't get media coverage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jefferson said that everyone is created equal, not that everyone is equally interesting. It's foolish to pretend otherwise. Everyone is more affected when something happens to someone they know, either personally or publically. The majority of the public is enjoys watching sports, movies, and TV, or listening to music. They know the personalities involved with these. Ergo, when something happens to one of them, they care about it.
Personally, I don't watch sports or TV all that much. I couldn't really care less what happens to Kobe Bryant. But, I am a devout liberal, so I like to follow the Limbaugh story to see if he gets justice. If the media breaks a story about Ann Coulter having a major heroine addiction, I know I'd watch intently. I also am a programmer and follow the OSS movement closely, so the deaths of the Ximian employees affected me. So please realize that you're not any different from anybody else. You follow certain things, and you'd watch the media closely if a major story broke concerning the things you care about.
PS> If you think the US media spends too much time covering things *you* don't care about, try the BBC. It's pretty good in my experience.
The United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy. It is very much a political thing. Despite the Crown's very limited role in politics they are by defination involved as the Head of State (not Head of Government).
>>>>>>>>>>>
Huh? You declare that the Monarchy is very much political, and then immediatelyl admit that it has a very limited role in politics. Which is it?
The "most stable" is a matter of opinion but I'll let that stand.
>>>>>>>>>>
FI said "one of" the most stable. The British government has been remarkably stable for hundreds of years. Unlike France, the democratization of Britain came not through a bloody revolution, but a gradual transition.
Have you ever heard of the Roman Republic? England wasn't a member of that.
>>>>>>>>>
I didn't say first, I said oldest. Generally, when we talk about the oldest of some thing, we do not consider things that no longer exist, like the Roman Republic.
Locke and Hobbes provided many ideas for the American Government. But so did Plato, Aristotle and numerous philosophers in France during the Enlightenment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes other philosophers did influence the Founding Fathers. Some directly and others indirectly. But the primary philosophical basis for the American government was British philosophy.
England does not have a monopoly on those ideas
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
Did I claim it did?
and at the time, did not practice them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
While Great Britain did not practice the precise philosophy espoused by Lock and others, many of those philosophers' ideas were derived from British practice. Great Britain has been a free society for hundreds of years, even under the monarchy, and much existing pratice was codified by its philosophers.
If I recall correctly you still have a good deal of the Parthenon in the British Museum and the Greek have been asking for those pieces back for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
What's your point? I am not claiming that Britain is faultless. Indeed, as someone of Indian descent, I have an innate dislike of Britain and its colonial period. However, I do recognize a good thing when I see it. Great Britain has a very proud and rich history, and a tradition of freedom. The monarchy is a part of that, and is a cultural institution that should remain in place as a reminder of the nation's glory.
Huh, I didn't know that. But I didn't say that GB had the oldest monarchy. I said it had one of the oldest democratic traditions. Even when the country was an absolute monarchy, it was still a relatively free society.
Tim Breners-Lee *is* English. He was born in London and graduated from Oxford. While ARPANET was an American project, Breners-Lee worked on the web while he was at CERN, and it was first made available at CERN in 1990.
It's not political. Politically, the British monarchy doesn't do much of anything. It is mostly a cultural thing. The monarchy is a cherished institution of Great Britain. It represents the history and culture of a great country. It has endured for hundreds of years as one of the most stable governments in the West. The British monarchy has one of the oldest democratic traditions in the world, and Britain gave birth to the philosophers from which our founding fathers derived their inspiration. Getting rid of the British monarchy would be like getting rid of the monuments of Greece, because they take up space that could be put to better use.
There is no need for everything in the world to be cold and logical. If a country wants to hold onto a 'silly' institution as a symbol of their nation, so be it.
I've hacked on kernels, but not on The Kernel (TM) I'm just yet another Slashdotter who can't type...
In other news, House Republicans push bill to outlay gay spawning...
I read "Australia To Use GM To Control Crap."
Thinking to myself: How can a company that makes crap help control crap???
Qt/Mac uses Quartz to do the font rendering, so the kernel problem is probably just the fonts the author is using for the screenshot.
And open source does font rendering phenomenally well. I've got a Dell UXGA LCD, and Freetype looks much better than Cleartype on this screen, given good fonts (like Vera). In my experience, OS X doesn't hint agressively enough, which makes things look fuzzy and makes the stroke weight uneven. Meanwhile, Cleartype hints too aggressively, which really distorts letter shapes. Freetype maintains a nice balance between accurate shapes and good contrast.
Maybe it stands for KDE?
No, that would be too easy...
Dude! I didn't know Konq could do that! Sweet...
The Qt/Mac port looks almost identical to Aqua, except for when Apple changes major things (like the tabs in 10.3) and TrollTech needs to catch up. The Qt/Windows port look native as well.
I do know that the Shah helped modernize Iran.
>>>>>>>>>>>
And Hitler did great things for Germany's economy, what's your point?
I do know that the Ayatollah murdered Americans
>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
Which Ayatollah? I have not heard any reference to the current Ayatollah (Khamenei) murdering Americans. And the only story I know of involving the previous one (Khomeini) was not so much him murdering Americans, but failing to prevent others from murdering Americans.
and has not taken steps to prevent terrorism in its own country.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Two reasons why Iran does not take more steps to prevent terrorism.
First, it's not their problem. The US is no friend of Iran, and continues to impose sanctions upon it. Why should they help us? There are a lot of places in the world where bad things are happening, and a lot more people are dying than died in 9/11, yet we do nothing. Why should we expect the whole world to now make our well-being a priority? I often hear people in the US say: "A country does not have friends or enemies, just interests," to rationalize the US's foreign policy. Well, it's not in Iran's interest to cooperate in helping the US's terrorism problem any more than it has to.
Second, Iran has condemmed the sort of terrorism commited against the US. Around the world, nobody really supports the actions of Al-Queda and similar organizations except a small contingent of militants. Killing random people in a far-away country with no particular goal in mind doesn't strike anybody as logical.
However, Iran (and most conservative Muslim countries) does draw a distinction between terrorists like Al-Queda and freedom-fighters. The terrorist organizations that the US says Iran supports are ones that operate in Israel, and many consider them to be freedom-fighters. As a person who hates violence, I cannot personally justify those who take terrorist actions against Israel.
On the other hand, the majority of Americans should support such actions. If they had no problem killing thousands of civilians to unseat Saddam, so, as they believed, Iraq could have a better future, they should have no problem with Palestinians killing civilians to gain their independence, and secure a better future for themselves.
I know that the Iranians will never be a major player on the world stage because of the militant religious attitude of the Ayatollah.
>>>>>>>>>>>
If the Ayatollah stays in power, that is probably true. Government's influenced by religion are a curse upon the world, and continue to hold back progress. However, there is nothing to say that the Ayatollah will remain in power. The theocracy in Iran is not entrenched like a dictator. There are already significant democratic organs within the country. Like China, the most likely outcome within Iran will be a gradual changing of attitudes among the people, and a change in government as a result of those attitudes.
In a country like Iran (and Islamic countries in general), that is really the only model that will work. Change must come from the inside, not forced from the outside. In Iran, people made a theocratic government because that's what they wanted. You can put them into a democracy, but then you have the hipocracy of a free country where people are not free to chose the structure of their society. Could you imagine the chaos that would have resulted if we had taken Christian societies, at the height of the Church's power, and forced them to throw the Church out of public life? Heck, we're still having that problem in the United States, trying to get the Church out of our courthouses!
Its funny. There is a "World's Naughtiest Outtakes" show on TV. It is so heavily censored that a lot of the segments don't even make any sense, because half the words are bleeped out!
Need to check your facts, last time I looked QT was not GPL you cant do anything you want..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
When was the last time you looked? Qt was GPL'ed more than three years ago, starting with version 2.2