Excuse the typos, if there are any when I'm done. I do much better when I'm paid for my writing. There are two types of "flickering" in flourescent lights. One can be much lower than 60 hz, and I've seen it cycle through this from just a few (2-5) times per second to once every two or more seconds when the bulb is really on its way out. It sort of pulsates near the end(s) of the bulb in the discolored portion, and you can see the light seem to "travel" outward or inward. Replacing the pair of bulbs fixes this problem, unless the real problem is in the ballast transformer. The other one is strobe-like in nature, much faster than the eye can detect, but if you have a rotating disc of the type you used to use on a record player turntable or lookl at a fan at certain speeds, you will see the effect. Some people claim to get headaches from these types of lights. Could it be something other than the fast switching at 120 hz, like the greenish light? You might try some full-spectrum bulbs and see if that helps. It is supposed to help some people with depression as compared to standard flourescent bulbs. BTW, there is no rectification going on in the bulb, but the reason for the 120 switching is similar to what happens in full-wave rectifiers before the pulses are buffered by power regulation (capacitors, inductors, Zener diodes, etc. T2000
I, for one, am one of those who prefer a GUI most of the time, but, like Azul, I find the command line useful, too.
Having more than one GUI could be a problem. A programmer's resources might be put to better use, if designing a GUI-based program, programming for one basic interface. If all GUIs used the same underlying programming interface, however, this might not be a problem. The differences in the GUIs could satisfy the needs or desires of different people, while allowing GUI-based programs to run under multiple GUIs.
An example of this can be found in some Windows 9x programs that have a "non-standard" window structure that deviates quite a bit from the usual ones (like Symantec's latest offerings for that OS). They use the Windows API as all of the rest, but they don't have the same "look and feel" as most other Windows programs.
If there were a "standard" programming layer between the OS itself and the GUI, programs could be written that could be used in any graphical interface.
There is one problem with a "standard" anything, however. It is restrictive and limits creativity beyond what that standard imposes. Sometimes this is a good thing, and sometimes it is a bad thing.
And remember that this is part of what Linux is all about, the ability to deviate from a standard, to be able to customize a program, fix a bug in the OS, design a device driver for yourself, etc.
I can see both sides of the issue, and I do not totally feel that either extreme is the way to go. In time, however, the Linux community will determine which way things are headed. It seems that an available GUI will be in our future, whether we like it or not. It also seems that we will have the command line available for those of us that like to go beyond simply running applications. Sometimes, using the command line is the only way to fix things.
Personally, I'd like to see both survive, to make Linux useful for the masses. It could mean more useful programs written or ported into Linux, more supported hardware, and a starting point for those who need a GUI to get their feet wet but want to dig deeper into the OS itself.
I am one of those people.
What I don't want to see is a few people wanting to keep others "out" by carefully guarding the knowledge that they have about Linux or any other computer subject. Knowledge can be power, but power can be abused. It can also be used to empower others if we use it in a way to benefit others instead of keeping it to ourself.
My experience with those in the Linux community is that most are willing to help others learn about Linux. I hope that all of us can follow their good example.
I'm appalled that the person who wanted to "take over" the development of "P" did what he did. Is there a way to protect ourselves from this sort of thing, perhaps by a copyright of the program name or even the contents, yet still allowing an individual to modify a program form the source code for his own use?
I think that the anonymous writer was doing the right thing by not mentioning names and such. It keeps him or her from being lowered to the same level of the other person.
If a person can't maintain the code for a program in a timely manner, wouldn't that mean that others who can['t wait for new versions would just have to either write their own or choose an alternative, if there were any available, to use.
It might have been a good idea to try to find another responsible person to take over the code development, but that is not a decision all of us can make for him or her.
I would not want the code to be maintaned by someone who likes to call others names, find fault, etc. This does not sound like a responsible, mentally sound individual. If this is the case, would it be safe to assume that the software would be free of code that might cause damage to the system or its files and programs? This is not to say that this _would_ happen, just something to think about.
Donald Hellen >>>remove "dot spamproof" from each end of my address to reply"
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse the typos, if there are any when I'm done. I do much better when I'm paid for my writing. There are two types of "flickering" in flourescent lights. One can be much lower than 60 hz, and I've seen it cycle through this from just a few (2-5) times per second to once every two or more seconds when the bulb is really on its way out. It sort of pulsates near the end(s) of the bulb in the discolored portion, and you can see the light seem to "travel" outward or inward. Replacing the pair of bulbs fixes this problem, unless the real problem is in the ballast transformer. The other one is strobe-like in nature, much faster than the eye can detect, but if you have a rotating disc of the type you used to use on a record player turntable or lookl at a fan at certain speeds, you will see the effect. Some people claim to get headaches from these types of lights. Could it be something other than the fast switching at 120 hz, like the greenish light? You might try some full-spectrum bulbs and see if that helps. It is supposed to help some people with depression as compared to standard flourescent bulbs. BTW, there is no rectification going on in the bulb, but the reason for the 120 switching is similar to what happens in full-wave rectifiers before the pulses are buffered by power regulation (capacitors, inductors, Zener diodes, etc. T2000
I, for one, am one of those who prefer a GUI most of the time, but, like Azul, I find the command line useful, too.
Having more than one GUI could be a problem. A programmer's resources might be put to better use, if designing a GUI-based program, programming for one basic interface. If all GUIs used the same underlying programming interface, however, this might not be a problem. The differences in the GUIs could satisfy the needs or desires of different people, while allowing GUI-based programs to run under multiple GUIs.
An example of this can be found in some Windows 9x programs that have a "non-standard" window structure that deviates quite a bit from the usual ones (like Symantec's latest offerings for that OS). They use the Windows API as all of the rest, but they don't have the same "look and feel" as most other Windows programs.
If there were a "standard" programming layer between the OS itself and the GUI, programs could be written that could be used in any graphical interface.
There is one problem with a "standard" anything, however. It is restrictive and limits creativity beyond what that standard imposes. Sometimes this is a good thing, and sometimes it is a bad thing.
And remember that this is part of what Linux is all about, the ability to deviate from a standard, to be able to customize a program, fix a bug in the OS, design a device driver for yourself, etc.
I can see both sides of the issue, and I do not totally feel that either extreme is the way to go. In time, however, the Linux community will determine which way things are headed. It seems that an available GUI will be in our future, whether we like it or not. It also seems that we will have the command line available for those of us that like to go beyond simply running applications. Sometimes, using the command line is the only way to fix things.
Personally, I'd like to see both survive, to make Linux useful for the masses. It could mean more useful programs written or ported into Linux, more supported hardware, and a starting point for those who need a GUI to get their feet wet but want to dig deeper into the OS itself.
I am one of those people.
What I don't want to see is a few people wanting to keep others "out" by carefully guarding the knowledge that they have about Linux or any other computer subject. Knowledge can be power, but power can be abused. It can also be used to empower others if we use it in a way to benefit others instead of keeping it to ourself.
My experience with those in the Linux community is that most are willing to help others learn about Linux. I hope that all of us can follow their good example.
Donald Hellen
I'm appalled that the person who wanted to "take over" the development of "P" did what he did. Is there a way to protect ourselves from this sort of thing, perhaps by a copyright of the program name or even the contents, yet still allowing an individual to modify a program form the source code for his own use?
I think that the anonymous writer was doing the right thing by not mentioning names and such. It keeps him or her from being lowered to the same level of the other person.
If a person can't maintain the code for a program in a timely manner, wouldn't that mean that others who can['t wait for new versions would just have to either write their own or choose an alternative, if there were any available, to use.
It might have been a good idea to try to find another responsible person to take over the code development, but that is not a decision all of us can make for him or her.
I would not want the code to be maintaned by someone who likes to call others names, find fault, etc. This does not sound like a responsible, mentally sound individual. If this is the case, would it be safe to assume that the software would be free of code that might cause damage to the system or its files and programs? This is not to say that this _would_ happen, just something to think about.
Donald Hellen
>>>remove "dot spamproof" from each end of my address to reply"