DIDN"T YOU HEAR PROJECT GONEME IS DEAD
It's been over 6 months, and they don't have a single line of important code. Period. They don't even have developers.
You need the book, because you are wrong. You have stumbled onto a point of major issue with teh GPL, which simply isn't 100% answered yet.
When a peice of code, lets say, libfoo, is under the GPL, that means the structures in memory that libfoo defines, the method signatures, etc, are all peices of libfoo. They are copyrighted works released under the GPL.
Now, lets say you want to write a peice of software to USE libfoo. To write this software, it's required to import some of libfoo's headers. These headers are copyrighted. When you compile your software, even though it links dynamically at runtime, it still retains this copyrighted memory structure information in the final binary image. You're compiled program has just included GPLd code. In fact, if you simply call methods, you're program could arguably be including copyrighted material.
This is a major peice of contention... and I would say this IS how the GPL works, even though most people ignore it. WHy would I say that? Because of the LGPL, which was designed SPECIFICALLY to address the issue by putting in writing that it was OKAY to use LGPL libraries in a non-LGPLed program. Because the FSF found the need to create the LGPL, one can only assume that that GPL really does work th is way. Somebody suing you for using their GPL'd code would most likely bring this up in court, and they'd likely win.
According to a strict interpretation of hte GPL, this is the way it is. It disturbs me greatly that some people have never read the thing, or are willing to ASSUME anything in the face of copyright. That's bogus to me. Don't rewrite the GPL to suit how you wish it was, interpret it as it is and go from there, otherwise you are opening yourself up a can of worms.
You rationalize the choice and then immediatly dismiss it without rationalization.
The switch of te button order was made because of the results of a usibility study. The study was pretty simple. When a user pops open a dialog box, their eyes gravitate to 4 places: the corners of the dialog. Naturlaly then, you want the prefered operation to be immediatly reachable at the exact same offset of every dialog. Yes is the bottom right of every window where Yes is the prefered choice. Then, when the user decides to move away from teh prefered choice, he simple moves his eyes left to the next prefered choice. This *IS* much easier on users: the usiblity study proves this. That's what they're for.
It is however different from most traditional Unix programs and Windows. In the former case, there was never any standard. People just put the buttons there because it's how they'd always done it, because they never think about it.
In the Windows choice, MS says to put them that way. MS did not have a usibility study for this, they simply chose it because it's what they always did.
What it does however, is put the default prefered choice, usually OK, at an undetermined location. If the window is 400 pixels wide, it might be here, if it's 300 pixels wide, it might be there. There is no natural tracking.
Gnome took a gamble by following the "better" way of things. They certainly recognized that it would be inconsistant with Windows, and with KDE too, and most other Unix programs. But they took that chance. They said "we can do it better", and IMO, they did.
If you only use Gnome applications, which is of course the goal of the Gnome project, this works out.;)
Sounds like "Just Another Distro" supported by a company, providing support, etc. A lot like, RedHat, and Suse. Nothing new to see here folks, move along.
"But DirectX isn't right for the task, it's too low level. Too much DX code only works on ATi or nVidia, too many vendor specific extensions and shitty drivers. It's great for tweaking the crap out of Doom 3 so it goes as fast as it can, but it would suck if some pixel shader operation that only works on Geforces blowed up my coding session."
Perhaps you refer to OpenGL. DirectX is an opaque MS API. There are not extensions. In fact, DirectX has a standard shader language, which are converted to the native shader language of the respective GPU by the DirectX drivers provided with the GPU.
Doom 3 also does not use Direct X. It uses OpenGL. All id games use OpenGL. That's what makes them special.;0
Not true. The new installer can install with essentially only one answered question.
The only thing a "GUI" would add to it would be just that, a GUI. Maybe with AA fonts.;)
"Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to use them, either."
But MS is attempting to, and it is generating a negative feeling towards the company. Consider my companies latest MS purchase.
We have a small office, about 30 computers. All running Windows 2000. We wanted to get 4 new computers recently, and didn't want to upgrade to XP. There was no need. 2K was working great for us.
So, we go looking for 2K licenses. None. They are gone. None.
So, okay. MS lets you buy an XP license and downgrade right? Cool. Maybe someday we'll use XP... so we investigate that. MS has changed their license agreement for XP. They now SPECIFICALLY prohibit downgrading, something the allowed before. There is no conceivable way to explain this, except that they want you to upgrade.
So, we discovered that they do still have a downgrade plan, but for that you have to sign up for software assurance! We aren't interested in that! We just want 4 new PCs, with 4 copies of win2k! We dont' want XP... it's more to maintain... we have to make sure our software works on it.
Um. That's not fair use. That's plain copyright violation. Fair use says you can listen to the music you bought, in any way you choose. You can rip it to your HD, you can make backups.
Fair use does not say you can download it from the internet nor share it with people.
Haha that's stupid. It's widely known Trillian has reverse engineered the other protocols. They have been blocked before, but again reverse engineered. They have NEVER had a good working relationship.
I've replaced everything I used to use Windows for with Free alternatives.
I switched from VB6/C# to Java. I switched from VS.Net to eclipse (way better for it). I switched from Photoshop to Gimp, Illustrator to Inkscape. My desktop is Gnome, so my ease of use isn't hampered.
There's no reason to use Windows.
Re:What applications are there
on
Mono Beta 2 Released
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Additionally, Gnome GUI programming is much different, and SUPERIOUR to the Windows.Forms layout. Windows.Forms reflects that exactly, Windows. Absolutly positioned buttons, and loosely wrapped COM controls. GTK layout is vastly different, using theming engines, multilingual input methods, and automated layout and positioning. Additionally the font support in the Gnome stack can select glyphs from multiple fonts.
Windows.Forms is built for Windows... and thusly, running it under Wine is a perfect compromise.
Seriously, what's wrong with Logo? It's a great primer for programming. It lets people perfectly associate programatic statements to actions. Very very good primer.
Slashdot Mirror
So I suspose you didn't read the part where this article had nothing to do with Bush's ban on federal funding for embroynic stem cells.
;)
He banned federal funding, not the work itself. And specifically for embroynic stem cells.
I agree with this ban. The federal government shouldn't be funding anything except our defence.
Badnarik for prez.
Heh
That's odd. I still have to run adaware to remove spyware from my XP SP2 box. Wonder why!
Larger VM space.
You never tried.
GONEME IS DEAD DID YOU NOT SEE IT I heard oGo tell me himself that the project was dead. Sorry.
DIDN"T YOU HEAR PROJECT GONEME IS DEAD It's been over 6 months, and they don't have a single line of important code. Period. They don't even have developers.
How are these any worse than a .kde or a .qt directory? Seriously.
You need the book, because you are wrong. You have stumbled onto a point of major issue with teh GPL, which simply isn't 100% answered yet.
When a peice of code, lets say, libfoo, is under the GPL, that means the structures in memory that libfoo defines, the method signatures, etc, are all peices of libfoo. They are copyrighted works released under the GPL.
Now, lets say you want to write a peice of software to USE libfoo. To write this software, it's required to import some of libfoo's headers. These headers are copyrighted. When you compile your software, even though it links dynamically at runtime, it still retains this copyrighted memory structure information in the final binary image. You're compiled program has just included GPLd code. In fact, if you simply call methods, you're program could arguably be including copyrighted material.
This is a major peice of contention... and I would say this IS how the GPL works, even though most people ignore it. WHy would I say that? Because of the LGPL, which was designed SPECIFICALLY to address the issue by putting in writing that it was OKAY to use LGPL libraries in a non-LGPLed program. Because the FSF found the need to create the LGPL, one can only assume that that GPL really does work th is way. Somebody suing you for using their GPL'd code would most likely bring this up in court, and they'd likely win.
According to a strict interpretation of hte GPL, this is the way it is. It disturbs me greatly that some people have never read the thing, or are willing to ASSUME anything in the face of copyright. That's bogus to me. Don't rewrite the GPL to suit how you wish it was, interpret it as it is and go from there, otherwise you are opening yourself up a can of worms.
You rationalize the choice and then immediatly dismiss it without rationalization. The switch of te button order was made because of the results of a usibility study. The study was pretty simple. When a user pops open a dialog box, their eyes gravitate to 4 places: the corners of the dialog. Naturlaly then, you want the prefered operation to be immediatly reachable at the exact same offset of every dialog. Yes is the bottom right of every window where Yes is the prefered choice. Then, when the user decides to move away from teh prefered choice, he simple moves his eyes left to the next prefered choice. This *IS* much easier on users: the usiblity study proves this. That's what they're for. It is however different from most traditional Unix programs and Windows. In the former case, there was never any standard. People just put the buttons there because it's how they'd always done it, because they never think about it. In the Windows choice, MS says to put them that way. MS did not have a usibility study for this, they simply chose it because it's what they always did. What it does however, is put the default prefered choice, usually OK, at an undetermined location. If the window is 400 pixels wide, it might be here, if it's 300 pixels wide, it might be there. There is no natural tracking. Gnome took a gamble by following the "better" way of things. They certainly recognized that it would be inconsistant with Windows, and with KDE too, and most other Unix programs. But they took that chance. They said "we can do it better", and IMO, they did. If you only use Gnome applications, which is of course the goal of the Gnome project, this works out. ;)
Sounds like "Just Another Distro" supported by a company, providing support, etc. A lot like, RedHat, and Suse. Nothing new to see here folks, move along.
"But DirectX isn't right for the task, it's too low level. Too much DX code only works on ATi or nVidia, too many vendor specific extensions and shitty drivers. It's great for tweaking the crap out of Doom 3 so it goes as fast as it can, but it would suck if some pixel shader operation that only works on Geforces blowed up my coding session."
;0
Perhaps you refer to OpenGL. DirectX is an opaque MS API. There are not extensions. In fact, DirectX has a standard shader language, which are converted to the native shader language of the respective GPU by the DirectX drivers provided with the GPU.
Doom 3 also does not use Direct X. It uses OpenGL. All id games use OpenGL. That's what makes them special.
It was also fairly limiting though wasn't it?
Can windows have variable alpha values? A real ARGB visual?
How many windows at the same time? Can you incercept events (clicks) to remap them to different coordinates (to do 3d rotating of windows)?
paying more than 85% of revenue collected to copyright owners." Copyright owners = the record company's
Not true. The new installer can install with essentially only one answered question. The only thing a "GUI" would add to it would be just that, a GUI. Maybe with AA fonts. ;)
It has nothing to do with Anaconda.
Free up? What does that mean?
And they can also be required to pay a fee to the copyright holder for previous use of this work.
"Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to use them, either."
But MS is attempting to, and it is generating a negative feeling towards the company. Consider my companies latest MS purchase.
We have a small office, about 30 computers. All running Windows 2000. We wanted to get 4 new computers recently, and didn't want to upgrade to XP. There was no need. 2K was working great for us.
So, we go looking for 2K licenses. None. They are gone. None.
So, okay. MS lets you buy an XP license and downgrade right? Cool. Maybe someday we'll use XP... so we investigate that. MS has changed their license agreement for XP. They now SPECIFICALLY prohibit downgrading, something the allowed before. There is no conceivable way to explain this, except that they want you to upgrade.
So, we discovered that they do still have a downgrade plan, but for that you have to sign up for software assurance! We aren't interested in that! We just want 4 new PCs, with 4 copies of win2k! We dont' want XP... it's more to maintain... we have to make sure our software works on it.
=(
Um. That's not fair use. That's plain copyright violation. Fair use says you can listen to the music you bought, in any way you choose. You can rip it to your HD, you can make backups.
Fair use does not say you can download it from the internet nor share it with people.
That is plain theft. You moron.
Haha that's stupid. It's widely known Trillian has reverse engineered the other protocols. They have been blocked before, but again reverse engineered. They have NEVER had a good working relationship.
I've replaced everything I used to use Windows for with Free alternatives.
I switched from VB6/C# to Java. I switched from VS.Net to eclipse (way better for it). I switched from Photoshop to Gimp, Illustrator to Inkscape. My desktop is Gnome, so my ease of use isn't hampered.
There's no reason to use Windows.
Additionally, Gnome GUI programming is much different, and SUPERIOUR to the Windows.Forms layout. Windows.Forms reflects that exactly, Windows. Absolutly positioned buttons, and loosely wrapped COM controls. GTK layout is vastly different, using theming engines, multilingual input methods, and automated layout and positioning. Additionally the font support in the Gnome stack can select glyphs from multiple fonts.
Windows.Forms is built for Windows... and thusly, running it under Wine is a perfect compromise.
Seriously, what's wrong with Logo? It's a great primer for programming. It lets people perfectly associate programatic statements to actions. Very very good primer.
It's the best desktop EVAR.