I dont want to troll or take the GNOME side, but I think here is a general problem of KDE: All it's libraries are very tightly integrated, this leads to something like a monolithic block.
Just think of a console program using container classes from qt - it has to be linked to the libqt, containing all the qt stuff (GUI etc.). Because the ld.so doesn't load the whole stuff, this doesn't mean that this is harmless. C++ container classes just don't have anything to do with GUI classes.
In other areas, this scheme is true as well. I think GNOME could learn much from KDE about a unified interface but KDE could learn the "build it from small, *independent* components" from GNOME. There are many interesting libraries originally developed for the GNOME project but usable in other contexts, but I can't think of any library in KDE that makes sense alone.
From the post: "... but that it could mean a sea change as control is shifted from network operators to users".
I think this is clearly wrong. The only real shift of control back to the user/people would be a mobile ad hoc network with entry points for a long distance carrier, not some "warning you're using the telephone network" system or something similar. Peer-to-Peer-Phones, essentially.
But this technology seems to be delayed by the big telcos fearing loss of control and loss of the reason that they exist...
This is essentially the same in the non-mobile-sector. We now have a rather hierarchical, central internet infrastructure.
But we all know that. I just wanted to point out that companies (esp. comm. sector) giving "control back to the user" is not the case most of the times.
Hey moderators, please mod that up. It's interesting, technical and seems feasible:)
And.. there is another possibility for using gcc for symbol extracting, both for C and the much more complex C++ --- use objdump!
I may be totally wrong, but isn't KDE still based on the libqt which is containing (like the "big bad M$" does it) everything from simple containers to UI widgets? I think this is KDE's Achilles' heel. And, on the other side, it's GNOMEs "problem" to grew, also. It is very hard for someone outside of the KDE world to use anything KDE provides. I think there is NO program which uses KDE libs but is actually a gnome program. KDEs libraries are breaching abstraction layers at too many points. But there are several programs which use libraries originating from the GNOME project, libraries such as libxml. There are also console programs using libxml, but they don't require a whole UI enabled libqt... (an argument for the embedded market). I think if KDE would restructure their libraries a bit and open them for other uses out of KDE, a merger of both worlds is still possible.
I think in config files, there are three different levels:
1. simple name - value pairs, optional one-layer-sections 2. hierarchically structured content 3. everything above that (.emacs,.bashrc,...)
And I think 1./2., as all the other threads show, can easily be covered by an external XML library. But 3. is clearly not implementable in XML in a way that is human readable and comprehensive. The hype has to stop there.
I'm really not very happy about things like http://www.o-xml.org/. Not wanting to troll, but why are people wasting time with this?
Why are you always talking about these "expensive 1 tesla magnets"? It is easy to get > 1.5 T out of conventional electromagnets (much current, cone shaped poles, water cooling). But the area where the magnetic flux density (translated that from german - is that the right word) is that high, is very small... It's more about the area you want these strong magnetic fields...
Look at another recent slashdot thread here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/04 /183522 2 Specifically, look at one of their slides here: http://www.fys.ku.dk/~nvj/ms-gpl/img_0222r. jpg at the bottom it reads:
"Open Standards have become a point of confusion".
Ehh... and this is clearly a field where insurance *should* not be needed. This would be (is?) an ill system.
It boils down to "lottery" - every patient pays for their lottery ticket and only few people get their millions... the insurance company takes the task of being the lottery company.
Hmm, do anyone also think that all these abandoned
space probes out there are a big waste of resources?
I'm curious if there is any initiative which wants to control & support all these old machines...
They're flying out there, wouldn't that be a good opportunity for e.G. rich ham radio activists (building these big dish antennas that are required for the uplink to the space craft...)?
Maybe other antenna types being developed (phased array etc.) could do the job.
Has anyone a pointer to such an initiative? Does one exist? This would boost the interesting in unmanned space exploration, I think...
Ha! Don't trust these mathematical "proofs" to much. The reason is simple: It is a *complex* system so even the math behind it is so complex that provokes errors in any such proof.
Just an example: In our "basic algorithms" computer science course, the teacher laid a proof of *insertion sort* onto the overhead projector.
He talked all the time about how important proofing a program's correctness is.
The funny thing: This proof contained 2 errors. And he didn't notice, a student noticed (not me)...
So, I'm not saying that a mathematical correctness proof is superfluous (It's an effective way to look over and over an important, maybe life-saving piece of code), but it's not like a proof in typical mathematical fields.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but if something is broken, another thing blews up, that's nearly always the case :)
(Except NASA space probe systems or similar devices...)
What would you suggest? If software doesn't brake because the infectious code is NOT USED, then you have redundant code in essence. Not good, either.
Thanks for the TinyQ-link.
But it's not just QT it is the whole KDE architecture.
I dont want to troll or take the GNOME side, but I think here is a general problem of KDE:
All it's libraries are very tightly integrated, this leads to something like a monolithic block.
Just think of a console program using container classes from qt - it has to be linked to the libqt, containing all the qt stuff (GUI etc.). Because the ld.so doesn't load the whole stuff, this doesn't mean that this is harmless. C++ container classes just don't have anything to do with GUI classes.
In other areas, this scheme is true as well. I think GNOME could learn much from KDE about a unified interface but KDE could learn the "build it from small, *independent* components" from GNOME.
There are many interesting libraries originally developed for the GNOME project but usable in other contexts, but I can't think of any library in KDE that makes sense alone.
A nice side effect:
Methane results in a much stronger greenhouse effect than the burned methane (co2).
From the post: "... but that it could mean a sea change as control is shifted from network operators to users".
I think this is clearly wrong. The only real shift of control back to the user/people would be a mobile ad hoc network with entry points for a long distance carrier, not some "warning you're using the telephone network" system or something similar. Peer-to-Peer-Phones, essentially.
But this technology seems to be delayed by the big telcos fearing loss of control and loss of the reason that they exist...
This is essentially the same in the non-mobile-sector. We now have a rather hierarchical, central internet infrastructure.
But we all know that.
I just wanted to point out that companies (esp. comm. sector) giving "control back to the user" is not the case most of the times.
Hey moderators, please mod that up. It's interesting, technical and seems feasible :)
And.. there is another possibility for using gcc for symbol extracting, both for C and the much more complex C++ --- use objdump!
Would be interesting to know what the result of cleaning using magnetic aquarium cleaners is :)
First of all: I'm a gnome user, don't hurt me :)
I may be totally wrong, but isn't KDE still based on the libqt which is containing (like the "big bad M$" does it) everything from simple containers to UI widgets?
I think this is KDE's Achilles' heel. And, on the other side, it's GNOMEs "problem" to grew, also.
It is very hard for someone outside of the KDE world to use anything KDE provides. I think there is NO program which uses KDE libs but is actually a gnome program. KDEs libraries are breaching abstraction layers at too many points.
But there are several programs which use libraries originating from the GNOME project, libraries such as libxml. There are also console programs using libxml, but they don't require a whole UI enabled libqt... (an argument for the embedded market).
I think if KDE would restructure their libraries a bit and open them for other uses out of KDE, a merger of both worlds is still possible.
I think in config files, there are three different levels:
.bashrc, ...)
1. simple name - value pairs, optional one-layer-sections
2. hierarchically structured content
3. everything above that (.emacs,
And I think 1./2., as all the other threads show, can easily be covered by an external XML library.
But 3. is clearly not implementable in XML in a way that is human readable and comprehensive.
The hype has to stop there.
I'm really not very happy about things like
http://www.o-xml.org/. Not wanting to troll, but why are people wasting time with this?
Why are you always talking about these "expensive 1 tesla magnets"?
It is easy to get > 1.5 T out of conventional electromagnets (much current, cone shaped poles, water cooling).
But the area where the magnetic flux density (translated that from german - is that the right word) is that high, is very small...
It's more about the area you want these strong magnetic fields...
Look at another recent slashdot thread here:4 /183522 2. jpg
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/0
Specifically, look at one of their slides here:
http://www.fys.ku.dk/~nvj/ms-gpl/img_0222r
at the bottom it reads:
"Open Standards have become a point of confusion".
Does one need to add anything?!
"eta 1" has to be "eta much less than 1". Sorry.
Ehh... and this is clearly a field where insurance *should* not be needed. This would be (is?) an ill system. It boils down to "lottery" - every patient pays for their lottery ticket and only few people get their millions... the insurance company takes the task of being the lottery company.
Hmm, do anyone also think that all these abandoned space probes out there are a big waste of resources? I'm curious if there is any initiative which wants to control & support all these old machines... They're flying out there, wouldn't that be a good opportunity for e.G. rich ham radio activists (building these big dish antennas that are required for the uplink to the space craft...)? Maybe other antenna types being developed (phased array etc.) could do the job. Has anyone a pointer to such an initiative? Does one exist? This would boost the interesting in unmanned space exploration, I think...
Hmm, sounds interesting! May be you can give pointers to news articles covering these things? Thank you in advance.
There'is actually a proposal for a "space internet" where long ping times, high data loss etc. occur.
It is called "Interplanetary Internet SIG":
http://www.ipnsig.org/home.htm
So... they do not use the common TCP/IP things, but their networking principle is closely related to IP.
Ha! Don't trust these mathematical "proofs" to much. The reason is simple: It is a *complex* system so even the math behind it is so complex that provokes errors in any such proof. Just an example: In our "basic algorithms" computer science course, the teacher laid a proof of *insertion sort* onto the overhead projector. He talked all the time about how important proofing a program's correctness is. The funny thing: This proof contained 2 errors. And he didn't notice, a student noticed (not me)... So, I'm not saying that a mathematical correctness proof is superfluous (It's an effective way to look over and over an important, maybe life-saving piece of code), but it's not like a proof in typical mathematical fields.
somewhat weird: wired.com posts news about wireless LANs...
I'm really wondering where all the energy should come from.... energy to move these "bricks"...