She also worked on some of the icons at Eazel (she did the first Nautilus vector theme) and some of the fonts for Danger (who make the hiptop/sidekick).
Luckilly for us Australia seems to at least be starting to get a useful opposition. Labor Party, Democrats and Greens look like they're going to block the more nasty, invasive versions of the anti-terrorist legislation in the senate. In fact within the governing Liberal Party many members of parliament are pushing against the draconian legislation proposed by the Prime Minister. Democracy wins again. So how did this sort of thing get through in the US? Its being rejected in Australia and was rejected in Canada.
I'm sorry to be rude, but theres frequently no other option.
> Instead of the complex graphics, why not work
> on getting it so any program (using
> open/close/seek) can read/write any data stream.
> I would love to be able to "cat
> http://blah.blah/index.html" without a special
> version of "cat".
You clearly haven't thought this through. The semantics of local paths and URIs are very different - even if you could do that almost every program would fail to work correctly. Only the simplest programs (such as cat) would be usable.
> I can't understand why anybody would consider
> any technique for naming information sources
> that does not cause open/close/seek to be able
> to manipulate those sources. Requiring this
> "vfs library" goes completely against the Unix
> design.
Have you *looked* at gnome-vfs? The API is based off the POSIX filesystem APIs - extended of course.
> I would much rather see effort going into
> creating such easy to use programming
> interfaces, rather than these huge bloated
> libraries with interfaces that make MicroSoft's
> stuff look acceptable, and copies of MicroSofts
> rather lame ideas for GUI. The killer apps are
> going to come out of some teenager's basement,
> but only if the power in the system is
> accessible by mortals, and this is only going
> to happen if it is simple enough to be
> understood without years of study.
Pretty much as soon as IBM's ViaVoice toolkit was available GVoice came out. From memory it lets you bind voice accelerators in the same way you bind keyboard accelerators. Check out this article about it in the GNOME summary from June 1999.
CORBA as used by GNOME is C-only (ORBit doesn't support other languages). So this probably makes it attractive to masochists (implementing OO interfaces in C is hardly "fun"). But not necessarily to Borland
I'm not sure how to put this, but bollocks!
You're obviously unaware of the ORBit Python and Perl bindings or you wouldn't make such a crazy claim. You should really look before you FUD.
Secondly implementing OO interfaces in C makes a lot of sense. GObject is a very nice model for programming - it avoids many of the issues with C++.
GNOME is attractive to Inprise/Borland because of some of the design decisions that were made for the GNOME component model. Inprise/Borland have been big proponents of CORBA for a long time (just take a look at their web site), and Bonobo's use of CORBA makes it very attractive. I think the KDE project will have to start looking long and hard at how to make KParts more attractive to developers. I get the feeling that this was a factor in Sun's decision to target OpenOffice at GNOME rather than KDE in spite of StarOffice's KDE integration features.
I guess I shouldn't have expected better from Slashdot. The Slashdot community seems to have given up on free software in favour of lame games and anime, but to advocate a browser that is only available on two platforms as an alternative to a browser that is available on just about every UNIX, MacOS, Win32 and even OpenVMS is just plain ridiculous. IE will never compete with Mozilla because of that.
I would personally recommend Windows and probably MacOS users use IE - at least until there is a Netscape 6, but to see it as an alternative for the Slashdot readership makes me almost laugh.
Of course the correct response to this is: Its Free Software - don't whine - patch! If Netscape management is more worried about shipping than fixing some bugs then fork for god's sake! I would rather them ship a 90% compliant browser than ship nothing and leave us with NS4 on UNIX.
What I would really like to see is Slashdot readers and authors committing some patches instead of fencesitting and whining. You can't consider yourselves to be part of the free software community if you don't commit code (or docs or translations or support or any of the other worthwhile things you could be doing).
How do you get your trolls to get to score 5 like that?
> The pioneers of Apple, NeXT etc. throw away the
> rulebook and decide to revolutionise the way we
> use computers using Linux and X as the base.
> And we get... a file browser. Can I even bring
> myself to say it? Yes: Explorer, guys. It looks
> like windows explorer. Immeasurably
> dissapointing.
Huh? Internet explorer looks like this?
I mustn't have noticed that last time I looked at windoze. Truth be known Nautilus' UI is based around a two-pane aproach. Big deal. So is Mozilla's, as well as a lot of apps. Even Slashdot uses a sidebar (or two) as part of its UI. Microsoft didn't invent that. If your range of experience isn't wide enough to recognise that then you should stay quiet before posting.
> I tell you, mobile phones, PDA's, they *own* the
> future. People don't even think of mobile phones
> as computers (mostly because they don't go
> wrong).
Wow - You really believe the dot-com marketing weenies. Hey, I've got some great technology stock to sell you. Its boo.com - this great e-commerce company with great potential. Convergence is a long way of in the palmtop market, but I just played with Jim Gettys' iPaq, and it runs GNOME, so Nautilus will be in your hand in not too long.
> [snip: why not code for crusoe directly] > > I understand that one advantage of *not* coding > directly in the native instruction set is that > Transmeta can totally revamp the instruction set > and simply release a new Code Morphing > software... but still, while a particular > release lasts, why not take advantage of > it?
Of course in the Open Source arena, binary compatibility isn't such an important issue. We just need to make sure gcc's backend is ported to the new Transmeta architecture and we can simply recompile all our code:)
Slashdot Mirror
She also worked on some of the icons at Eazel (she did the first Nautilus vector theme) and some of the fonts for Danger (who make the hiptop/sidekick).
Luckilly for us Australia seems to at least be starting to get a useful opposition. Labor Party, Democrats and Greens look like they're going to block the more nasty, invasive versions of the anti-terrorist legislation in the senate. In fact within the governing Liberal Party many members of parliament are pushing against the draconian legislation proposed by the Prime Minister. Democracy wins again. So how did this sort of thing get through in the US? Its being rejected in Australia and was rejected in Canada.
I'm sorry to be rude, but theres frequently no other option.
> Instead of the complex graphics, why not work
> on getting it so any program (using
> open/close/seek) can read/write any data stream.
> I would love to be able to "cat
> http://blah.blah/index.html" without a special
> version of "cat".
You clearly haven't thought this through. The semantics of local paths and URIs are very different - even if you could do that almost every program would fail to work correctly. Only the simplest programs (such as cat) would be usable.
> I can't understand why anybody would consider
> any technique for naming information sources
> that does not cause open/close/seek to be able
> to manipulate those sources. Requiring this
> "vfs library" goes completely against the Unix
> design.
Have you *looked* at gnome-vfs? The API is based off the POSIX filesystem APIs - extended of course.
> I would much rather see effort going into
> creating such easy to use programming
> interfaces, rather than these huge bloated
> libraries with interfaces that make MicroSoft's
> stuff look acceptable, and copies of MicroSofts
> rather lame ideas for GUI. The killer apps are
> going to come out of some teenager's basement,
> but only if the power in the system is
> accessible by mortals, and this is only going
> to happen if it is simple enough to be
> understood without years of study.
Dude, you are *so* full of shit.
Pretty much as soon as IBM's ViaVoice toolkit was available GVoice came out. From memory it lets you bind voice accelerators in the same way you bind keyboard accelerators. Check out this article about it in the GNOME summary from June 1999.
The NetBSD kernel modules are LGPLed - does this mean plex86 support will never be a standard part of the NetBSD kernel?
I'm not sure how to put this, but bollocks!
You're obviously unaware of the ORBit Python and Perl bindings or you wouldn't make such a crazy claim. You should really look before you FUD.
Secondly implementing OO interfaces in C makes a lot of sense. GObject is a very nice model for programming - it avoids many of the issues with C++.
GNOME is attractive to Inprise/Borland because of some of the design decisions that were made for the GNOME component model. Inprise/Borland have been big proponents of CORBA for a long time (just take a look at their web site), and Bonobo's use of CORBA makes it very attractive. I think the KDE project will have to start looking long and hard at how to make KParts more attractive to developers. I get the feeling that this was a factor in Sun's decision to target OpenOffice at GNOME rather than KDE in spite of StarOffice's KDE integration features.
I guess I shouldn't have expected better from Slashdot. The Slashdot community seems to have given up on free software in favour of lame games and anime, but to advocate a browser that is only available on two platforms as an alternative to a browser that is available on just about every UNIX, MacOS, Win32 and even OpenVMS is just plain ridiculous. IE will never compete with Mozilla because of that.
I would personally recommend Windows and probably MacOS users use IE - at least until there is a Netscape 6, but to see it as an alternative for the Slashdot readership makes me almost laugh.
Of course the correct response to this is: Its Free Software - don't whine - patch! If Netscape management is more worried about shipping than fixing some bugs then fork for god's sake! I would rather them ship a 90% compliant browser than ship nothing and leave us with NS4 on UNIX.
What I would really like to see is Slashdot readers and authors committing some patches instead of fencesitting and whining. You can't consider yourselves to be part of the free software community if you don't commit code (or docs or translations or support or any of the other worthwhile things you could be doing).
*rofl*
:(
;-)
How do you get your trolls to get to score 5 like that?
> The pioneers of Apple, NeXT etc. throw away the
> rulebook and decide to revolutionise the way we
> use computers using Linux and X as the base.
> And we get... a file browser. Can I even bring
> myself to say it? Yes: Explorer, guys. It looks
> like windows explorer. Immeasurably
> dissapointing.
Huh? Internet explorer looks like this?
I mustn't have noticed that last time I looked at windoze. Truth be known Nautilus' UI is based around a two-pane aproach. Big deal. So is Mozilla's, as well as a lot of apps. Even Slashdot uses a sidebar (or two) as part of its UI. Microsoft didn't invent that. If your range of experience isn't wide enough to recognise that then you should stay quiet before posting.
> I tell you, mobile phones, PDA's, they *own* the
> future. People don't even think of mobile phones
> as computers (mostly because they don't go
> wrong).
Wow - You really believe the dot-com marketing weenies. Hey, I've got some great technology stock to sell you. Its boo.com - this great e-commerce company with great potential. Convergence is a long way of in the palmtop market, but I just played with Jim Gettys' iPaq, and it runs GNOME, so Nautilus will be in your hand in not too long.
> *sigh* Glad I stayed away from client side.
Me too.
> Dave
Ian
> [snip: why not code for crusoe directly]
:)
>
> I understand that one advantage of *not* coding
> directly in the native instruction set is that
> Transmeta can totally revamp the instruction set
> and simply release a new Code Morphing
> software... but still, while a particular
> release lasts, why not take advantage of
> it?
Of course in the Open Source arena, binary compatibility isn't such an important issue. We just need to make sure gcc's backend is ported to the new Transmeta architecture and we can simply recompile all our code
Ian