So, the entire point is that the big box we have at our desks will be replaced by a small box we'll want to keep at our desks? As far as large keyboards and monitors don't go away (larger and larger monitors are being sold every day, and the keyboard market isn't dead at all) what is the difference?
Yes, if software continue being stale we may not need all the power of a big box in the future, and may be able to replace it with something small enough to carry around. Yet, people will hardly work on tablets or do everything with battery power.
A notice about statistics. They can be very misleading. Portable devices turnover is way faster than the (now mature) desktop. Also, I don't know how it works at the developped world, but of the 9 desktops I owned during my life, 1 was counted as a "desktop sale". Looking at people that don't know how to assemble a computer, none of my parents' ones was ever counted as a "desktop sale", ditto for most of my uncles and aunts (I can count one accounted sale for them), and neighbours. At the same time, I've never saw one laptop that didn't enter the statistics.
Not at all. The cost of too many choices is that you'll need to find some opinion to trust. Yeah, at lab environment with limited interaction people resort to "no choice", but only because they don't have the possibility of talking about the issue.
The bad news is that the opinion most people trust is the one that comes from that screen people have on their living rooms. But here I'm repeating a GP.
Anyway, if you think too many choices is a bad thing, it is your job to show how one can merge distinct choices so you get the best of both. It is a feat that is recognized to be impossible on most cases, have a try. I'd suggest you start at the emacs x vi flamewar.
"But there has to come a point where the nature of the device has some sway over the inevitable shape and form factor that the device will end up taking."
In most countries the design protection laws are aware of that. Sansung may still lose that suit because of the shape of the (one, isn't it?) button in front of the phone, of actual shape (more specific than just "round") of the edges, but it is way unlikely that they lose it because they changed to a big touchscreen or started using round edges.
You were talking about the differences between the Great Depression and now. You should include peak oil, it is an important difference. That, despite I agreeing with you about it probably being a smaller problem than some people say it is and, if it is as big a problem, there being nothing we can do about.
"> Well, at 3.5 the plasma environment didn't segfault one or twice when I start my laptop (sometimes locking the X).
Does that still happen? Did you file a bug? It can't get fixed if you don't file it."
I have no idea on how to report that. Do you get Debian's bugs? What data should I report with a plasma segfault? (any log file? There is a core dump somewhere?)
"Also, its applications did have a more sane reaction to keyboard orders (like, if it opens a window, let it have the focus)."
That specific problem happens on the qalculate plasmoid. If you use a keyboard shortucut to activate it you'll still have to click on the window to change focus. I don't know if the problem is on plasma or that specific application. I've seen similarly bad interactions on other apps, but I don't remeber specificaly what. And yes, you are right, I should be reporting more bugs.
About that third scenario. It happens on Debian squeeze. If you open a KDE session on more than one computer (with a shared home), and opens Kmail on one of them, the error dialog appears. Again I don't know if it's a bug in kmail, or nepumuk (the dialog is from nepomuk). Again, do you get bugs from Debian's reportubug? Should I file it elsewhere?
Well, at 3.5 the plasma environment didn't segfault one or twice when I start my laptop (sometimes locking the X). Also, its applications did have a more sane reaction to keyboard orders (like, if it opens a window, let it have the focus). Also, I could have more than one KDE session without windows appearing clamming that it couldn't lock a file and closing the application I'm using (and if I don't press the "proceed" button, I can keep using the app, no problem, except for the window that stay above it). The possibility of having more than one session open at the same time was the dealbreaker that let me out of Gnome at KDE3/Gnome2 time (before that I didn't give a dam about what DE I was using).
But ok, that second problem appears on a kind of interaction that simply didn't exist at the 3.5 time.
"GTK 3.2+ has remote capibility, by translating to HTML interfaces."
That, and I'd like to point that my impression is (but I'm hardly an specialist) that the toolkit is the best point to implement network transparence. The only layer where it would make better use of the network would be the actual application, but then it would be too expensive.
"...what would be the point in having a 27" monitor if all the applications you use have huge, crappy, inefficient, cluttered GUIs?"
That does not explain why no software cared about having an efficient GUI after those huge screen become popular.
Of course, the GP was just being too much cinic to talk about the real problem here. All software is trying to fit into mobile now, even at the expense of fitting in the desktop. Well, desktop (and comparatively sized laptops) are still kings, and altough mobile may be more numerous in the future, they won't replace the desktop, server, mainframe or supercomputer. So, expect in the future a wave of software just "discoveing" they need to fit the desktop, and talking about how just adding a couple of GUI elements won't hurt, that you can make use of a large disk, and that keyboards are a really fast user interface, so you should be prepared to use it.
If you are not new here, you may remember something similar happening when the mouse become widespread.
Indeed. Now it is time to upgrade X, not ditch it. That extra functionality that "just 1 or 2% of the users ever see"* doesn't put any big load on machines anymore, why work into not having it?
Now would be a nearly perfect time to make the X protocol more friendly to WANs, by including more modern hight level primitives on it.
* Translation: Our developers think people should work on their machines, not remotely. That is a funny line of tougth comming from Red Hat, but it explains why they don't care at all that GUI software is overwritting standard configuration files, while not giving you any hint for CLI based configuration. They really expect you to be physicaly present at your server, or are they trying to do desktops now?
Yeah, once at your servers the attacker would better just do the DB updates needed to get what he wants, or change your web content. (Oh, and don't forget about setting a backdor.)
I can't even imagine why such attacker would try to gather impersonating data, he can simply use your server.
"...wouldn't that basically put all trust in those whom sell domain names?"
Indeed. In fact, the one selling domain names is the most recommended entity to assure you that you are resolving the domain name to the right computer.
While what you say makes sense, and maybe can be true, I doubt their user base is aking them to remove customization possibilities. That's simply not the kind of thing a user will ask.
"Postgres integrates with the normal Unix user accounts so I don't have to worry about users and passwords"
Yes, it integrates with your network's yellow pages infrastructure (beng it MS AD, nis, or watever) or your Linux PC's user system. But let's face it, a big share of the developers use it on Windows. Yep, people develop on Windows... I can't imagine how either, but they do.
Most complaints that Postgres is hard to administrate normaly mean that PgAdmin isn't as powerfull as MySQL Admin. Those people are normaly comparing GUI frontends.
The certainty I was displaying at the GP was completely undeserved, FTL has strange consequences. You are right, the lightcone should be replaced by some kind of hyperlightcone, and time travel isn't that obvious anymore.
Yet, I can not make Lorentz transformations fit anything anymore... Lightspeed is still different from all other speeds. I'm completely lost.
If you are close to bankrupt you, maybe, can switch to FreeOffice. What you can't do include the following:
1 - Switching desktops to Linux. That means extra costs and no actual economy at the short term. You aren't buying new licenses of Windows anyway, nor new machines. You are near bankrupt, remember?
2 - Swithcing to Apache (or to a free DBMS). That implies you'd switch all that old.asp (or sql) codebase. Yeah, it would bring some economies at the short term but also a big spending. No deal.
3 - Switching from MS network management solutions (AD, Exchange, Sharepoint). It would bring huge savings at the next upgrade, but that upgrade won't happen while you are near bankrupt anyway.
4 - Switch CAD (any kind). Yeah, new short term expenses and you don't plan to buy new licenses anyway.
You mean that this research conducted on a self selected group can not be trusted?
I just don't know if I answer it with a "woosh" or by asking people to moderate you up. I miss that old foot icon of/. it made the editors intent clear so we could laught with them, instead of them...
Slashdot Mirror
So, the entire point is that the big box we have at our desks will be replaced by a small box we'll want to keep at our desks? As far as large keyboards and monitors don't go away (larger and larger monitors are being sold every day, and the keyboard market isn't dead at all) what is the difference?
Yes, if software continue being stale we may not need all the power of a big box in the future, and may be able to replace it with something small enough to carry around. Yet, people will hardly work on tablets or do everything with battery power.
A notice about statistics. They can be very misleading. Portable devices turnover is way faster than the (now mature) desktop. Also, I don't know how it works at the developped world, but of the 9 desktops I owned during my life, 1 was counted as a "desktop sale". Looking at people that don't know how to assemble a computer, none of my parents' ones was ever counted as a "desktop sale", ditto for most of my uncles and aunts (I can count one accounted sale for them), and neighbours. At the same time, I've never saw one laptop that didn't enter the statistics.
When you are fighting to not be destroyed, the fact that your oponent teritory turned into a useles piece of sand isn't that terrible.
Yeah, it is still useles. But you've still won.
Not at all. The cost of too many choices is that you'll need to find some opinion to trust. Yeah, at lab environment with limited interaction people resort to "no choice", but only because they don't have the possibility of talking about the issue.
The bad news is that the opinion most people trust is the one that comes from that screen people have on their living rooms. But here I'm repeating a GP.
Anyway, if you think too many choices is a bad thing, it is your job to show how one can merge distinct choices so you get the best of both. It is a feat that is recognized to be impossible on most cases, have a try. I'd suggest you start at the emacs x vi flamewar.
In most countries the design protection laws are aware of that. Sansung may still lose that suit because of the shape of the (one, isn't it?) button in front of the phone, of actual shape (more specific than just "round") of the edges, but it is way unlikely that they lose it because they changed to a big touchscreen or started using round edges.
You are implying Open Source does not extinguish the systems it extends? All those dead (or zombie) Unix variants would tell a different story.
It's about time to EEE Windows (too bad Exchange still holds).
You were talking about the differences between the Great Depression and now. You should include peak oil, it is an important difference. That, despite I agreeing with you about it probably being a smaller problem than some people say it is and, if it is as big a problem, there being nothing we can do about.
Live peak oil out of your analisis at your own peril. We (the entire world) are in a much worse situation now.
I have no idea on how to report that. Do you get Debian's bugs? What data should I report with a plasma segfault? (any log file? There is a core dump somewhere?)
That specific problem happens on the qalculate plasmoid. If you use a keyboard shortucut to activate it you'll still have to click on the window to change focus. I don't know if the problem is on plasma or that specific application. I've seen similarly bad interactions on other apps, but I don't remeber specificaly what. And yes, you are right, I should be reporting more bugs.
About that third scenario. It happens on Debian squeeze. If you open a KDE session on more than one computer (with a shared home), and opens Kmail on one of them, the error dialog appears. Again I don't know if it's a bug in kmail, or nepumuk (the dialog is from nepomuk). Again, do you get bugs from Debian's reportubug? Should I file it elsewhere?
And thanks a lot for the attention.
Well, at 3.5 the plasma environment didn't segfault one or twice when I start my laptop (sometimes locking the X). Also, its applications did have a more sane reaction to keyboard orders (like, if it opens a window, let it have the focus). Also, I could have more than one KDE session without windows appearing clamming that it couldn't lock a file and closing the application I'm using (and if I don't press the "proceed" button, I can keep using the app, no problem, except for the window that stay above it). The possibility of having more than one session open at the same time was the dealbreaker that let me out of Gnome at KDE3/Gnome2 time (before that I didn't give a dam about what DE I was using).
But ok, that second problem appears on a kind of interaction that simply didn't exist at the 3.5 time.
That, and I'd like to point that my impression is (but I'm hardly an specialist) that the toolkit is the best point to implement network transparence. The only layer where it would make better use of the network would be the actual application, but then it would be too expensive.
That does not explain why no software cared about having an efficient GUI after those huge screen become popular.
Of course, the GP was just being too much cinic to talk about the real problem here. All software is trying to fit into mobile now, even at the expense of fitting in the desktop. Well, desktop (and comparatively sized laptops) are still kings, and altough mobile may be more numerous in the future, they won't replace the desktop, server, mainframe or supercomputer. So, expect in the future a wave of software just "discoveing" they need to fit the desktop, and talking about how just adding a couple of GUI elements won't hurt, that you can make use of a large disk, and that keyboards are a really fast user interface, so you should be prepared to use it.
If you are not new here, you may remember something similar happening when the mouse become widespread.
Indeed. Now it is time to upgrade X, not ditch it. That extra functionality that "just 1 or 2% of the users ever see"* doesn't put any big load on machines anymore, why work into not having it?
Now would be a nearly perfect time to make the X protocol more friendly to WANs, by including more modern hight level primitives on it.
* Translation: Our developers think people should work on their machines, not remotely. That is a funny line of tougth comming from Red Hat, but it explains why they don't care at all that GUI software is overwritting standard configuration files, while not giving you any hint for CLI based configuration. They really expect you to be physicaly present at your server, or are they trying to do desktops now?
Yeah, once at your servers the attacker would better just do the DB updates needed to get what he wants, or change your web content. (Oh, and don't forget about setting a backdor.)
I can't even imagine why such attacker would try to gather impersonating data, he can simply use your server.
Indeed. In fact, the one selling domain names is the most recommended entity to assure you that you are resolving the domain name to the right computer.
While what you say makes sense, and maybe can be true, I doubt their user base is aking them to remove customization possibilities. That's simply not the kind of thing a user will ask.
No.
Your rules are either completely arbitrary, or simply make entire languages not work.
Also, C++0x have a very good reason to exist. The fact that you don't uderstand it doesn't make it useless.
So, it is open source, as long as you don't change anything in the code. You are using Microsoft's definition of "open source".
Yes, it integrates with your network's yellow pages infrastructure (beng it MS AD, nis, or watever) or your Linux PC's user system. But let's face it, a big share of the developers use it on Windows. Yep, people develop on Windows... I can't imagine how either, but they do.
Most complaints that Postgres is hard to administrate normaly mean that PgAdmin isn't as powerfull as MySQL Admin. Those people are normaly comparing GUI frontends.
The certainty I was displaying at the GP was completely undeserved, FTL has strange consequences. You are right, the lightcone should be replaced by some kind of hyperlightcone, and time travel isn't that obvious anymore.
Yet, I can not make Lorentz transformations fit anything anymore... Lightspeed is still different from all other speeds. I'm completely lost.
If you are close to bankrupt you, maybe, can switch to FreeOffice. What you can't do include the following:
1 - Switching desktops to Linux. That means extra costs and no actual economy at the short term. You aren't buying new licenses of Windows anyway, nor new machines. You are near bankrupt, remember?
2 - Swithcing to Apache (or to a free DBMS). That implies you'd switch all that old .asp (or sql) codebase. Yeah, it would bring some economies at the short term but also a big spending. No deal.
3 - Switching from MS network management solutions (AD, Exchange, Sharepoint). It would bring huge savings at the next upgrade, but that upgrade won't happen while you are near bankrupt anyway.
4 - Switch CAD (any kind). Yeah, new short term expenses and you don't plan to buy new licenses anyway.
Yeah, let's break all the Windows.
My reaction would be to send a probe that doesn't react to that. But maybe that extremely advanced alien species ins't all that smart.
That is the problem. Most people that want Chrome are using Chrome. Most people that are using Firefox like it better than Chrome.
You mean that this research conducted on a self selected group can not be trusted?
I just don't know if I answer it with a "woosh" or by asking people to moderate you up. I miss that old foot icon of /. it made the editors intent clear so we could laught with them, instead of them...
There is a joke here somewhere...