I feel that that's the problem. What do people buy more RAM for, really? The OS just starts cashing the hard drive. So, gosh darn it, why doesn't somebody make our drives faster?
Dave
P.S.: The memory industry must be just eating this up, it's so yummy.
I can saw "fast", but I don't think that setup will be. I mean, not relatively speaking. If you're using PC100 ram sticks, that'll give you somewhere around a theoretical 800MB/s(I think it's more like 327MB/s). Anyways, that nice little 50-60M/s seems pretty paltry.
Take a trip down memory lane with me, if you will.
I remember a number of years ago(the number is about 10, I think), I was bugging my parents for a 10MB drive. Why did I want the drive? Not for capacity, of course. I mean, even in the days of DOS 3.3(I think I used DR-DOS, actually), 10MB wasn't a whole heck of a lot. What was it? Fourteen 720k floppies? And with most programs, you could fit four of five on a single disk. Nope, it was SPEED.
A hard drive was so much faster in those days, compared to the alternatives. So, if you were incredibly rich, you could afford a big fat 20-30MB hard drive, and your machine would be blazing. Incredibly fast(relatively) non-volatile storage.
Now what do we have? Honestly? Compared to ever other component on our system, our non-volatile storage is damned slow. Even slower than RAMBUS;) We're solving these problems with RAID and such, but those are really just stop-gap measures. So, today, when you really want to make your system faster, you(generally) buy more RAM. Hard drives just don't get a whole heck of a lot faster over time. I have an old 730M drive I use for my home directories, and it does 8M/second(unbuffered). My relatively-new IBM DeskStar drive gets 16M/s(again, unbuffered).
So, I ask you this: When are we going to get fast nonvolatile storage?
Good pointing out the possible error about the ThinkNIC's licensing. However, the term "Software"(notice uppercase "S") has been defined at the very beginning of the license. It says that its EULA only applies to software that is not "third party". This means things like Netscape, RealPlayer, and it also specifically mentions software released under the GPL. The license then states that the EULA does not apply in these cases - the Third Part software's own license applies(and said licenses can be views under the "Help" function of Netscape).
I think we should be vigilant for these sorts of things. I feel better already knowing that the ThinkNIC people acknowledge the GPL(ie: they're not "bad guys").
I feel it IS necessary to create a sperate interface to Mozilla's web page rendered. What slows Mozilla down so much? Surely not the gecko rendering engine. It's pretty darned fast(at least no slower than Netscape). So what is it? Hmmmm... Maybe the interface? Sure, a completely definable interface is nice, but, quite frankly, this'll be the first 2D application that might spur hardware development in a LONG time. All that configurability simply, and completely, bogs down my computer, and my computer isn't all that slow.
So, will I use Mozilla? Occasionaly. Will it be my main browser? As soon as Galeon(or some other such thing) allows me to accept cookies, use https://, and configure my fonts(bookmarks are already implemented, of course). Only then. As it is, the interface is just too damned slow.
The way I see it, we use gasoline for two reasons:
1. It's here. It's there. It's everywhere. I can always get gas for my vehicle. 2. It's the cheapest option.
Sure, hydrogen fuel cells may be more efficient, and one day may be signifigantly cheaper than gasoline, but unless I can get it pretty much wherever I need it, it won't fly.
So, taking all things into account, a new non-gasoline fuel source has to have two things:
1. Availability; it's got to be everywhere, or else people won't use it. Unless they only travel on certain routes, where they know they can get the appropriate fill-up. 2. It must be cheaper then any other alternatives(including gasoline), and you've got to CONVINCE them it's cheaper. Show people that if they don't switch, they're throwing money away. The oil compaines have this part locked dead-on for a while to come; they'll just say "Hey, you can get a gas-powered car for about $14,000, brand new, but what'll this new-fangled thing set you back?"
My 0.05 cents (inflation, plus I live in Canada) Dave
Hey, this was a real world benchmark. Keep that in mind. Many of the points mentioned in your comment(waiting for the database to "warm up" for an hour or so) would never happen in the real world. You just lost your big client's only server. It's toast. You get it back up... and now you're going to wait for an hour and twenty minutes or whatever? I doubt it. Nope, this was "real world." And, although I don't use databases on a regular basis, this is exactly the kind of information I'd make my choice on.
I wish I hadn't just used my last moderator point. <BR> <BR> <I>Sure, this'll be a useful reference for future...</I>
You're partially correct. Yes, the web is in a "teething" phase. Yup, glitches do tend to override content, in some places. But it's still worthy to archive. How will future generations answer the questions: How exactly did the Internet start out? What did it look like?
With these snapshots, of course.
<I>The trouble...</I>
I feel this is pretty much completely correct.
<I>So, given this...</I>
I don't think it is getting a snapshot of how society is today. But is that really the point? Or, rather, is that really what these archives will be used for in the future? I doubt it. But this archive will provide a great deal of information about the growth of communications techology, and how it will change our lives.
<I>expressing views that people consider "outdated" or "primitive", even they are held by many others<I>
If a million people say something that is factually wrong, it's still wrong. Got that?
<I> Anyway, any study that attempts to categorise how we live at the moment using the web is doomed to be prejudiced and incomplete. Until everyone is online and has equal access, this is just another arrogant study attempting to categorise who is worth enough to be able to use the net.</I>
Yeah, so what? Does that mean they should stop? It's still their time and money. And this archive WILL provide an amazing picture of the Internet when it was still relatively young(teething, as it were).
Arg! Okay, so, let's say you like a GPL program(let's say Program) to QT("QT"). Your binary file now has TWO licenses and TWO seperate parts. There's the Program, and there's QT. QT is not a derivitive of Program, so it doesn't have to be GPL'd. While QT functions are embedded in a statically-linked Program executable, they ARE STILL QT, and therefore are a) under the QPL, and b) not a derivative work of Program. I can distribute a statically-linked program that uses QT, so long as I say "Some parts of this binary are under the QPL, and some are under the GPL. The source for the GPL parts is available at."
Now, if QT was to link against a GPL'd program(NOT the same as a program linking against QT), then we'd have a problem. But QT only links against libraries that it's allowed to(ie: either LGPL or some other license is applied to the libraries).
For someone who feels that they have the knowledge and experience to comment on a program's user interface, you sure do have some language on you.
And, as the other fellow posted, the pre-1.2 series actually has a very nice UI. I havn't had a chance to try PhotoPaint yet, but I bet it's one window with sub-windows inside it, a-la Opera browser. No offense, but that concept was thought up partially due to limits in Windows, and is simply a bad user interface. It sucks up screen real-estate, and makes working with more than one app nearly impossible.
If PhotoPaint has a window for each image being worked on, I apologize.
With all this, but I'd like to raise a few more points. I'm all for Free software, and open development, but I almost think the Genome project was too open. Had it been done in the cold war era, the various governments involved would have kept their mouths shut. There'd have been no drooling politicians nor ravenous corporate CEOs waiting for its completion. The world would have been a better place for the knowledge, but it would have been an even better place for the control based on that knowledge. You see, I have the ability to build a nuclear bomb. It'd take me some time and effort, but I *could* build it. Except that I have to fissionable material. It's kept under tight lock-and-key. Now, all these gene-splicers are available commercially. I'll have the knowledge. What's left from someone building a virus to end all virii? Heck, what's stopping someone from making a puppy with softer fur, that end up carrying the virus that ends all virii?
If this were another commodity, let's say maybe wood or something, I might agree with the conspiracy idea, you know, the one where they're just jacking up prices to get greater profits. But building chip fabs is extrodinarily expensive. So expensive that if you build one bigger than you'll need in a little while, it can be death to your company. Hand-held markets have boomed lately, will cell phones and whatnot. They need computer parts - or, more accurately, parts that used to be reserved for computer-related fields. Nobody REALLY foresaw this, so now we've got a big, massive, enourmous demand for memory and LCDs, which the current fabs just simply can't meet. Considering the time it takes to build one manufacturing facility, I understand the 12-18 month time frame given. Most of the tech industry is on a next-day schedule. That is, they order the parts when they are absolutely sure them need them - few places have the warehouse space to stock big inventories any more. So, that combined with holiday shopping WILL create a big shortage. There's no way around it. As for the gas shortage, that's just greed. OPEC could easily produce more oil, but they choose not to. It's a different situation all together.
I agree with many of your points. In fact, since you've had so much trouble, I can see why you might take this maybe a WEE bit too far. There's definetly a problem with all these people wanting all your information, and I sympathise. But I feel the need to point out a few things, so don't take offense:)
About the DMV asking for your social insurance number, signature, and finger-print, there's a very good reason for this.
In the past, it was ridiculously easy to get a license. I, a Canadian, actually got a license, by mail, from Michigan. Of course it was illegal, but they still sent it to me. Pretty easy, eh? Think of all the things I can do with a valid U.S. license(don't worry, I didn't do any of them, I was just proving a point to a friend). I can get alcohol. I can claim to be a U.S. citizen. I can buy a gun. Can you believe that? I could buy a bloody gun! (By the way, I was 17 at the time)
So it's not really bad that they take all these things, so long as they don't show up on your driver's license(except maybe for your signature). They need to know who you are, even if it's just for a State ID... Who knows, the person they're happily handing a piece of plastic could be a killer. I'd much rather have all my personal information available to anyone who wants it rather than know that I caused someone to be murdered.
As far as the swab wiping off the scanner, the clerk could have just been cleaning it:) Mind you, they could have been collecting DNA, just in case, but I bet it was just for cleaning.
And for the private companies who were asking for you SIN, they can go blow it out the ***. That's absurd.
The article actually mentioned more than just games, if you didn't notice. They talked about MP3s, 50 Gigs of storage, and, what I was interested in, "video recording":) TiVO, anyone?:) Now, all that OS cruft you mentioned(multitasking, virtual memory, etc.) are there because it makes for a more robust and versatile system. For just a second, imagine Sony goes bust. Look at all those games out there. Boy, if you could get them to play on your just-developed console, you'd have a great market available. All those people who still want to play Playstation games, but some new ones too. But, damn, you built the box too specifically - you'll have to redesign, but you're low on funds, so you don't. Just after you box's release, a competitor comes out with a console that can run their own games, as well as all those Play Station games. They whoop your ass. Had you, instead of building extremely specialized hardware and software, built a robust, extensible, and versatile system, you would have had the upper hand(or at least been on even ground).
Get the point? There are so many different things that could happen, too. TV Cable companies now start bundling free cable-internet access with your regular TV. Free of charge(at least for now;). You send up an update to all your consoles(transparently, using its build-in modem to dial-up a 1-800 number), and voila, a whole heck of a lot of happy customers. Happy customers mean generous, loyal customers.:)
Let's face it. For the past ten years, the media has hyped up everything to h*ll and back. There's no avoiding it these days. One enthusiastic reporter feels the need to.. er.. exaggerate a bit, and it runs from there. I firmly believe that a revolution is under way, but, frankly, it's only been going on for half a century(at most). All other fundamental revolutions took millennia(look at reading - the revolution started with the first form of writing, and has only reached fruition lately with high literacy in developed countries).
Left to itself(without the media), the "Internet Revolution" would have proceeded a-pace. I can imagine small parts of our everyday lives having something to do with computers. Then larger parts. Eventually, a rather huge portion. Look at reading. How long can you go without seeing a word written somewhere? If you close your eyes, it'll be longer, but your brain might still turn something up;)
Anyways, so, there is a revolution under way. It's still in its infancy. There are many people whose lives are devoted to computers(they live, eat, breathe, and work computers). But not the masses. We're just waiting for the printing press, so to speak. Unfortunately, the media has hyped everything up to the point of unbelievability, and everyone's wondering why they still have to drive to work. Well, I say, wait. It'll come. In the end, one way of life will die, and one will emerge. It's just the way a world works - but don't hurry it.
I bet you consider yourself a realist. Actually, in reality, you're an idealist. You see, in the ideal Free World of Capitalism, products get bought for good reasons. Maybe not because the products themselves are better, but maybe because they're cheaper. Or a nice person made them. But in reality, the marketplace is not controlled by the consumer. You're saying that we don't have to use closed, proprietary protocols. Well, that's all the manufacturers are making. If you don't use closed-source, you don't use at all. So, instead of the consumers making their choices, it's the manufacturers.
True, a hundred years ago, this couldn't have happened. If Smith & Weston made a crappy revolver, then people would have bought from somewhere else. Unfortunatly, now there are many industries where the only game in town has all the power. Such people/corporations gained so much power, originally, because they has something to offer their customers.
You say that the government should stay out of these cases. Well, let's examine that further. You say this, probably, because the government shouldn't be allowed to control too much of any populace. Most people in the western world(of which I am a member) have grown up with the idea of the People's Power. It is our patriotic duty to keep our governments in line, whether it be by voting, demonstrating, or in rare, extreme cases, revolution. What I assert is that the things you're trying to prevent are happening right NOW, but not by your government. The control has left the hands of the elected and leap into the hands of the corporate powerful.
So, next time you wish to express your belief that large organizations should not tell us what to do and where to do it, you should also take into account the fact that these days, the government doesn't control us nearly as much as commercial enterprise does.
After having read the article thoroughly, I have some thoughts;
1. "contain... and a new mail client and PIM..."
This should be interesting. I would like to see if Microsoft has taking any hints from Open Source efforts in these areas, largely from Evolution and the KDE PIM environments. They've used a lot of MS ideas, and maybe turnabout is fair play, eh?
2. "PowerPoint 2001 will incorporate a new tri-pane interface..."
Wow. I mean, honestly, that really isn't much "innovation", does it? A user can do that with any GLADE-type GNOME/GTK+ program. I think. Anyways, I don't understand how in the anti-trust trial, Microsoft has kept bringing up its right to "innovate" when this is the sort of evidence available. How much "innovation" has gone into any recent MS products? And I don't mean things that were implemented somewhere else first.
3. "However, Office 2001 will not feature support for synchronizing data with Microsoft's Pocket PC..."
This is pretty lousy programming. Assuming good file and database backends, this should be a trivial thing. Why would and upper management let the press get ahold of something like this? It'll make great publicity for the Palm platform, though:)
Dave
P.S.: Yeah, I know that I used '"innovate"' too much;) Gimme a break, I'm a cynic:)
I learned how to touch-type when I was very young. I'm even hesitant to say "learned." I learned how to touch type like I learned how to speak. I just grew into it. After 16 years, a friend of mine said something to me as I was working on the computer(this is about 4 years ago, now). I was writing a letter for her(she was dictating), and then she stopped, and looked a bit mad. She said "are you actually typing anything?" I was sort of dumbfounded, and said "Yes, of course, look." Anyways, the gist of it was that I apparently don't type in a usual way - I guess all the keypresses are more evenly spaced, and I use different fingers for different keys(but not like you're supposed to). So, if you could track, for a while, how a user types, you'll find interesting relationships, ie: 90% of a time, there's a 0.35 second pause in between hitting the "r" key and hitting the "t" key. This particular user often puts a space in "often", like "of ten", and doesn't notice until the word is written, at which point the user goes back and corrects it, hitting the backspace key approx. 2.4 times a second.
I imaging these things are extremely individual. It really does make sense, you know.
Dave
P.S.: It'd be moderatly hard to reproduce someone's typing style, but it'd still be harder than re-producing their password:)
Please read the following COMPLETELY before making any judgements. My own thoughts are mixed.
Myself:
Good day, Mr. Miller:) I have written a review of your Duke Nukem 3D game(yes, I know it's old, but I participate in a web-ring of classic games), and I was about to post it when, on your web site, I stumbled across your "Intellectual property Rights -- Terms of Use" page, and I did a bit of a double take. As my review mentions uses several of your trade marks, I am seeking authorized permission:) You think it's all right?
Dave
Mr. Miller:
A standard response to the maddness!:-)
I must say this is just entirely too funny. And a sad commentary on how little most people understand law.
I will say that anyone who thinks we are trying to control reviews and such are jumping on a bandwagon without really giving it proper consideration.
Legally, that's entirely impossible -- but then, most people know less about law than they do making ice.;-)
This policy/agreement simply allows fan sites to use our trademarks and copyright character art, etc. Most developers/publishers do not allow this at all. End of story. We are providing a way for them to do so, though.
Lay people, of course, read this policy and become panic mongers. This policy is only for owners of web sites who wish to use our trademarks and copyrights, like www.3dportal.com.
Sheesh! Back to important work...
Myself:
What is this? An auto-responder? Excuse me, sir, but I don't have lots of money. I'm a mechanic, and I don't get paid enough. I don't have a lawyer "on staff", so, I figured I'd ask you. I don't pretend to understand the law, so I figured I'd *ask you*. Thank you for your help:)
Dave
P.S.: I do own a web site(which will remain nameless at the moment), and the review I have written about Duke Nukem 3D is, for the most part, glowing, but I did comment on some "short cuts" that, in my opinion, took away from the game. I refer you to your IP lisence:
5. You may not use the Marks in a derogatory or defamatory manner, or in any negative context. Such use will terminate your license to use the Marks.
Now, I respect your company, and, quite frankly, I don't want to do anything to upset anybody, so I'm *ASKING YOU* if it's all right that I post my review... It may be considered, in some fashions "derogatory or defamatory." Is that all right?
Mr. Miller:
Freedom of speech protects anything you write, as long as it's truthful, even if just in your opinion. We believe in free speech, and would never attempt to stop a negative review of our games. Our job is to make our games worthy of a positive review.;-)
Mr. Dickenson said at one point "That's why you need a good lawyer," in reference to paten applications and such. Does he know how much even a mediocre lawyer costs? I had one a while ago, and for six one-hour sessions, it set me back around $3000. He also said a couple of times about how he patent system was "for the little inventor", you know, the garage-inventor type person whose intellectual property would be stolen by the big companies. So, the system is in place to protect the inventor who has just spent his life savings on his invention, but yet that same inventor is expected to have all these thousand-dollar bills around to pay a lawyer?
After reading the article, I found that not only are they talking about cameras and wireless Internet technology, but printers also. I think this bodes well for Linux and Open Source. It seems that some printers will eventually accept JPEG2000 input as a source. Since things like WYSIWYG word processors and graphicals web browsers basically render an image to a screen, would it be that much harder to render the image to/dev/lp0? That'd be pretty sweet. Now all us Linux people can buy cheap printers that do rendering in software:) Hopefully.
Hey there:) I'm 19 and I've been programming for about 10 years. You can probably figure out that Windows wasn't around then;) At least not in its current phase. Anyways, when I told my mum that I wanted to make programs, she said sure. She bought me a computer and set me up with dBase(can't remember the version). Anyways, it was mediocre at best. You see, I wanted to do something specifically(can't remember. Maybe a game?), and dBase just wasn't suited for it. I suggest you ask your kids what they want to do, and start from there. Even if they make a simple plot-based text game, they'll love it, because they made it. So long as you start with the basics, they should be okay. If they want to make a real application-type thing, I suggest you start them with(gasp!) VB - the drag-and-drop and nice GUI will facilitate your teaching.
Dave
BTW: Make sure you actually TEACH them. Don't just set them down in front of a computer with some program running.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel that that's the problem. What do people buy more RAM for, really? The OS just starts cashing the hard drive. So, gosh darn it, why doesn't somebody make our drives faster?
Dave
P.S.: The memory industry must be just eating this up, it's so yummy.
I can saw "fast", but I don't think that setup will be. I mean, not relatively speaking. If you're using PC100 ram sticks, that'll give you somewhere around a theoretical 800MB/s(I think it's more like 327MB/s). Anyways, that nice little 50-60M/s seems pretty paltry.
Take a trip down memory lane with me, if you will.
;) We're solving these problems with RAID and such, but those are really just stop-gap measures. So, today, when you really want to make your system faster, you(generally) buy more RAM. Hard drives just don't get a whole heck of a lot faster over time. I have an old 730M drive I use for my home directories, and it does 8M/second(unbuffered). My relatively-new IBM DeskStar drive gets 16M/s(again, unbuffered).
I remember a number of years ago(the number is about 10, I think), I was bugging my parents for a 10MB drive. Why did I want the drive? Not for capacity, of course. I mean, even in the days of DOS 3.3(I think I used DR-DOS, actually), 10MB wasn't a whole heck of a lot. What was it? Fourteen 720k floppies? And with most programs, you could fit four of five on a single disk. Nope, it was SPEED.
A hard drive was so much faster in those days, compared to the alternatives. So, if you were incredibly rich, you could afford a big fat 20-30MB hard drive, and your machine would be blazing. Incredibly fast(relatively) non-volatile storage.
Now what do we have? Honestly? Compared to ever other component on our system, our non-volatile storage is damned slow. Even slower than RAMBUS
So, I ask you this: When are we going to get fast nonvolatile storage?
Dave
In case nobody noticed, a new Dual Processor PowerMac G4 is also available. I wonder how much it'll cost me.
Dave
Good pointing out the possible error about the ThinkNIC's licensing. However, the term "Software"(notice uppercase "S") has been defined at the very beginning of the license. It says that its EULA only applies to software that is not "third party". This means things like Netscape, RealPlayer, and it also specifically mentions software released under the GPL. The license then states that the EULA does not apply in these cases - the Third Part software's own license applies(and said licenses can be views under the "Help" function of Netscape).
I think we should be vigilant for these sorts of things. I feel better already knowing that the ThinkNIC people acknowledge the GPL(ie: they're not "bad guys").
Dave
I feel it IS necessary to create a sperate interface to Mozilla's web page rendered. What slows Mozilla down so much? Surely not the gecko rendering engine. It's pretty darned fast(at least no slower than Netscape). So what is it? Hmmmm... Maybe the interface? Sure, a completely definable interface is nice, but, quite frankly, this'll be the first 2D application that might spur hardware development in a LONG time. All that configurability simply, and completely, bogs down my computer, and my computer isn't all that slow.
So, will I use Mozilla? Occasionaly. Will it be my main browser? As soon as Galeon(or some other such thing) allows me to accept cookies, use https://, and configure my fonts(bookmarks are already implemented, of course). Only then. As it is, the interface is just too damned slow.
Dave
The way I see it, we use gasoline for two reasons:
1. It's here. It's there. It's everywhere. I can always get gas for my vehicle.
2. It's the cheapest option.
Sure, hydrogen fuel cells may be more efficient, and one day may be signifigantly cheaper than gasoline, but unless I can get it pretty much wherever I need it, it won't fly.
So, taking all things into account, a new non-gasoline fuel source has to have two things:
1. Availability; it's got to be everywhere, or else people won't use it. Unless they only travel on certain routes, where they know they can get the appropriate fill-up.
2. It must be cheaper then any other alternatives(including gasoline), and you've got to CONVINCE them it's cheaper. Show people that if they don't switch, they're throwing money away. The oil compaines have this part locked dead-on for a while to come; they'll just say "Hey, you can get a gas-powered car for about $14,000, brand new, but what'll this new-fangled thing set you back?"
My 0.05 cents
(inflation, plus I live in Canada)
Dave
Hey, this was a real world benchmark. Keep that in mind. Many of the points mentioned in your comment(waiting for the database to "warm up" for an hour or so) would never happen in the real world. You just lost your big client's only server. It's toast. You get it back up ... and now you're going to wait for an hour and twenty minutes or whatever? I doubt it. Nope, this was "real world." And, although I don't use databases on a regular basis, this is exactly the kind of information I'd make my choice on.
Dave
I wish I hadn't just used my last moderator point. ...</I>
...</I>
...</I>
<BR>
<BR>
<I>Sure, this'll be a useful reference for future
You're partially correct. Yes, the web is in a "teething" phase. Yup, glitches do tend to override content, in some places. But it's still worthy to archive. How will future generations answer the questions: How exactly did the Internet start out? What did it look like?
With these snapshots, of course.
<I>The trouble
I feel this is pretty much completely correct.
<I>So, given this
I don't think it is getting a snapshot of how society is today. But is that really the point? Or, rather, is that really what these archives will be used for in the future? I doubt it. But this archive will provide a great deal of information about the growth of communications techology, and how it will change our lives.
<I>expressing views that people consider "outdated" or "primitive", even they are held by many others<I>
If a million people say something that is factually wrong, it's still wrong. Got that?
<I> Anyway, any study that attempts to categorise how we live at the moment using the web is doomed to be prejudiced and incomplete. Until everyone is online and has equal access, this is just another arrogant study attempting to categorise who is worth enough to be able to use the net.</I>
Yeah, so what? Does that mean they should stop? It's still their time and money. And this archive WILL provide an amazing picture of the Internet when it was still relatively young(teething, as it were).
Dave
I bet running this game inside Mozilla will make it as slow as it was on a Commodore, too ;) No matter what you do.
Dave
Arg! Okay, so, let's say you like a GPL program(let's say Program) to QT("QT"). Your binary file now has TWO licenses and TWO seperate parts. There's the Program, and there's QT. QT is not a derivitive of Program, so it doesn't have to be GPL'd. While QT functions are embedded in a statically-linked Program executable, they ARE STILL QT, and therefore are a) under the QPL, and b) not a derivative work of Program. I can distribute a statically-linked program that uses QT, so long as I say "Some parts of this binary are under the QPL, and some are under the GPL. The source for the GPL parts is available at ."
Now, if QT was to link against a GPL'd program(NOT the same as a program linking against QT), then we'd have a problem. But QT only links against libraries that it's allowed to(ie: either LGPL or some other license is applied to the libraries).
For someone who feels that they have the knowledge and experience to comment on a program's user interface, you sure do have some language on you.
And, as the other fellow posted, the pre-1.2 series actually has a very nice UI. I havn't had a chance to try PhotoPaint yet, but I bet it's one window with sub-windows inside it, a-la Opera browser. No offense, but that concept was thought up partially due to limits in Windows, and is simply a bad user interface. It sucks up screen real-estate, and makes working with more than one app nearly impossible.
If PhotoPaint has a window for each image being worked on, I apologize.
Dave
With all this, but I'd like to raise a few more points. I'm all for Free software, and open development, but I almost think the Genome project was too open. Had it been done in the cold war era, the various governments involved would have kept their mouths shut. There'd have been no drooling politicians nor ravenous corporate CEOs waiting for its completion. The world would have been a better place for the knowledge, but it would have been an even better place for the control based on that knowledge. You see, I have the ability to build a nuclear bomb. It'd take me some time and effort, but I *could* build it. Except that I have to fissionable material. It's kept under tight lock-and-key. Now, all these gene-splicers are available commercially. I'll have the knowledge. What's left from someone building a virus to end all virii? Heck, what's stopping someone from making a puppy with softer fur, that end up carrying the virus that ends all virii?
My two-and-a-half cents
Dave
If this were another commodity, let's say maybe wood or something, I might agree with the conspiracy idea, you know, the one where they're just jacking up prices to get greater profits. But building chip fabs is extrodinarily expensive. So expensive that if you build one bigger than you'll need in a little while, it can be death to your company. Hand-held markets have boomed lately, will cell phones and whatnot. They need computer parts - or, more accurately, parts that used to be reserved for computer-related fields. Nobody REALLY foresaw this, so now we've got a big, massive, enourmous demand for memory and LCDs, which the current fabs just simply can't meet. Considering the time it takes to build one manufacturing facility, I understand the 12-18 month time frame given. Most of the tech industry is on a next-day schedule. That is, they order the parts when they are absolutely sure them need them - few places have the warehouse space to stock big inventories any more. So, that combined with holiday shopping WILL create a big shortage. There's no way around it. As for the gas shortage, that's just greed. OPEC could easily produce more oil, but they choose not to. It's a different situation all together.
Dave
I agree with many of your points. In fact, since you've had so much trouble, I can see why you might take this maybe a WEE bit too far. There's definetly a problem with all these people wanting all your information, and I sympathise. But I feel the need to point out a few things, so don't take offense :)
:) Mind you, they could have been collecting DNA, just in case, but I bet it was just for cleaning.
About the DMV asking for your social insurance number, signature, and finger-print, there's a very good reason for this.
In the past, it was ridiculously easy to get a license. I, a Canadian, actually got a license, by mail, from Michigan. Of course it was illegal, but they still sent it to me. Pretty easy, eh? Think of all the things I can do with a valid U.S. license(don't worry, I didn't do any of them, I was just proving a point to a friend). I can get alcohol. I can claim to be a U.S. citizen. I can buy a gun. Can you believe that? I could buy a bloody gun! (By the way, I was 17 at the time)
So it's not really bad that they take all these things, so long as they don't show up on your driver's license(except maybe for your signature). They need to know who you are, even if it's just for a State ID... Who knows, the person they're happily handing a piece of plastic could be a killer. I'd much rather have all my personal information available to anyone who wants it rather than know that I caused someone to be murdered.
As far as the swab wiping off the scanner, the clerk could have just been cleaning it
And for the private companies who were asking for you SIN, they can go blow it out the ***. That's absurd.
Dave
The article actually mentioned more than just games, if you didn't notice. They talked about MP3s, 50 Gigs of storage, and, what I was interested in, "video recording" :) TiVO, anyone? :) Now, all that OS cruft you mentioned(multitasking, virtual memory, etc.) are there because it makes for a more robust and versatile system. For just a second, imagine Sony goes bust. Look at all those games out there. Boy, if you could get them to play on your just-developed console, you'd have a great market available. All those people who still want to play Playstation games, but some new ones too. But, damn, you built the box too specifically - you'll have to redesign, but you're low on funds, so you don't. Just after you box's release, a competitor comes out with a console that can run their own games, as well as all those Play Station games. They whoop your ass. Had you, instead of building extremely specialized hardware and software, built a robust, extensible, and versatile system, you would have had the upper hand(or at least been on even ground).
;). You send up an update to all your consoles(transparently, using its build-in modem to dial-up a 1-800 number), and voila, a whole heck of a lot of happy customers. Happy customers mean generous, loyal customers. :)
:)
Get the point? There are so many different things that could happen, too. TV Cable companies now start bundling free cable-internet access with your regular TV. Free of charge(at least for now
All right?
Dave
Let's face it. For the past ten years, the media has hyped up everything to h*ll and back. There's no avoiding it these days. One enthusiastic reporter feels the need to .. er .. exaggerate a bit, and it runs from there. I firmly believe that a revolution is under way, but, frankly, it's only been going on for half a century(at most). All other fundamental revolutions took millennia(look at reading - the revolution started with the first form of writing, and has only reached fruition lately with high literacy in developed countries).
;)
Left to itself(without the media), the "Internet Revolution" would have proceeded a-pace. I can imagine small parts of our everyday lives having something to do with computers. Then larger parts. Eventually, a rather huge portion. Look at reading. How long can you go without seeing a word written somewhere? If you close your eyes, it'll be longer, but your brain might still turn something up
Anyways, so, there is a revolution under way. It's still in its infancy. There are many people whose lives are devoted to computers(they live, eat, breathe, and work computers). But not the masses. We're just waiting for the printing press, so to speak. Unfortunately, the media has hyped everything up to the point of unbelievability, and everyone's wondering why they still have to drive to work. Well, I say, wait. It'll come. In the end, one way of life will die, and one will emerge. It's just the way a world works - but don't hurry it.
Dave
I bet you consider yourself a realist. Actually, in reality, you're an idealist. You see, in the ideal Free World of Capitalism, products get bought for good reasons. Maybe not because the products themselves are better, but maybe because they're cheaper. Or a nice person made them. But in reality, the marketplace is not controlled by the consumer. You're saying that we don't have to use closed, proprietary protocols. Well, that's all the manufacturers are making. If you don't use closed-source, you don't use at all. So, instead of the consumers making their choices, it's the manufacturers.
True, a hundred years ago, this couldn't have happened. If Smith & Weston made a crappy revolver, then people would have bought from somewhere else. Unfortunatly, now there are many industries where the only game in town has all the power. Such people/corporations gained so much power, originally, because they has something to offer their customers.
You say that the government should stay out of these cases. Well, let's examine that further. You say this, probably, because the government shouldn't be allowed to control too much of any populace. Most people in the western world(of which I am a member) have grown up with the idea of the People's Power. It is our patriotic duty to keep our governments in line, whether it be by voting, demonstrating, or in rare, extreme cases, revolution. What I assert is that the things you're trying to prevent are happening right NOW, but not by your government. The control has left the hands of the elected and leap into the hands of the corporate powerful.
So, next time you wish to express your belief that large organizations should not tell us what to do and where to do it, you should also take into account the fact that these days, the government doesn't control us nearly as much as commercial enterprise does.
Thank you.
Dave
After having read the article thoroughly, I have some thoughts;
... and a new mail client and PIM ..."
..."
..."
:)
;) Gimme a break, I'm a cynic :)
1. "contain
This should be interesting. I would like to see if Microsoft has taking any hints from Open Source efforts in these areas, largely from Evolution and the KDE PIM environments. They've used a lot of MS ideas, and maybe turnabout is fair play, eh?
2. "PowerPoint 2001 will incorporate a new tri-pane interface
Wow. I mean, honestly, that really isn't much "innovation", does it? A user can do that with any GLADE-type GNOME/GTK+ program. I think. Anyways, I don't understand how in the anti-trust trial, Microsoft has kept bringing up its right to "innovate" when this is the sort of evidence available. How much "innovation" has gone into any recent MS products? And I don't mean things that were implemented somewhere else first.
3. "However, Office 2001 will not feature support for synchronizing data with Microsoft's Pocket PC
This is pretty lousy programming. Assuming good file and database backends, this should be a trivial thing. Why would and upper management let the press get ahold of something like this? It'll make great publicity for the Palm platform, though
Dave
P.S.: Yeah, I know that I used '"innovate"' too much
I learned how to touch-type when I was very young. I'm even hesitant to say "learned." I learned how to touch type like I learned how to speak. I just grew into it. After 16 years, a friend of mine said something to me as I was working on the computer(this is about 4 years ago, now). I was writing a letter for her(she was dictating), and then she stopped, and looked a bit mad. She said "are you actually typing anything?" I was sort of dumbfounded, and said "Yes, of course, look." Anyways, the gist of it was that I apparently don't type in a usual way - I guess all the keypresses are more evenly spaced, and I use different fingers for different keys(but not like you're supposed to). So, if you could track, for a while, how a user types, you'll find interesting relationships, ie: 90% of a time, there's a 0.35 second pause in between hitting the "r" key and hitting the "t" key. This particular user often puts a space in "often", like "of ten", and doesn't notice until the word is written, at which point the user goes back and corrects it, hitting the backspace key approx. 2.4 times a second.
:)
I imaging these things are extremely individual. It really does make sense, you know.
Dave
P.S.: It'd be moderatly hard to reproduce someone's typing style, but it'd still be harder than re-producing their password
Please read the following COMPLETELY before making any judgements. My own thoughts are mixed.
:) I have written a review of your Duke Nukem 3D game(yes, I know it's old, but I participate in a web-ring of classic games), and I was about to post it when, on your web site, I stumbled across your "Intellectual property Rights -- Terms of Use" page, and I did a bit of a double take. As my review mentions uses several of your trade marks, I am seeking authorized permission :) You think it's all right?
:-)
;-)
:)
;-)
Myself:
Good day, Mr. Miller
Dave
Mr. Miller:
A standard response to the maddness!
I must say this is just entirely too funny. And a sad commentary on how little most people understand law.
I will say that anyone who thinks we are trying to control reviews and such are jumping on a bandwagon without really giving it proper consideration.
Legally, that's entirely impossible -- but then, most people know less about law than they do making ice.
This policy/agreement simply allows fan sites to use our trademarks and copyright character art, etc. Most developers/publishers do not allow this
at all. End of story. We are providing a way for them to do so, though.
Lay people, of course, read this policy and become panic mongers. This policy is only for owners of web sites who wish to use our trademarks and copyrights, like www.3dportal.com.
Sheesh! Back to important work...
Myself:
What is this? An auto-responder? Excuse me, sir, but I don't have lots of money. I'm a mechanic, and I don't get paid enough. I don't have a lawyer "on staff", so, I figured I'd ask you. I don't pretend to understand the law, so I figured I'd *ask you*. Thank you for your help
Dave
P.S.: I do own a web site(which will remain nameless at the moment), and the review I have written about Duke Nukem 3D is, for the most part, glowing, but I did comment on some "short cuts" that, in my opinion, took away from the game. I refer you to your IP lisence:
5. You may not use the Marks in a derogatory or defamatory manner, or in any negative context. Such use will terminate your license to use the Marks.
Now, I respect your company, and, quite frankly, I don't want to do anything to upset anybody, so I'm *ASKING YOU* if it's all right that I post my review... It may be considered, in some fashions "derogatory or defamatory." Is that all right?
Mr. Miller:
Freedom of speech protects anything you write, as long as it's truthful, even if just in your opinion. We believe in free speech, and would never attempt to stop a negative review of our games. Our job is to make our games worthy of a positive review.
That's it. Judge for yourself.
Dvae
Mr. Dickenson said at one point "That's why you need a good lawyer," in reference to paten applications and such. Does he know how much even a mediocre lawyer costs? I had one a while ago, and for six one-hour sessions, it set me back around $3000. He also said a couple of times about how he patent system was "for the little inventor", you know, the garage-inventor type person whose intellectual property would be stolen by the big companies. So, the system is in place to protect the inventor who has just spent his life savings on his invention, but yet that same inventor is expected to have all these thousand-dollar bills around to pay a lawyer?
Bite me.
Dave
After reading the article, I found that not only are they talking about cameras and wireless Internet technology, but printers also. I think this bodes well for Linux and Open Source. It seems that some printers will eventually accept JPEG2000 input as a source. Since things like WYSIWYG word processors and graphicals web browsers basically render an image to a screen, would it be that much harder to render the image to /dev/lp0? That'd be pretty sweet. Now all us Linux people can buy cheap printers that do rendering in software :) Hopefully.
Dave
Hey there :) I'm 19 and I've been programming for about 10 years. You can probably figure out that Windows wasn't around then ;) At least not in its current phase. Anyways, when I told my mum that I wanted to make programs, she said sure. She bought me a computer and set me up with dBase(can't remember the version). Anyways, it was mediocre at best. You see, I wanted to do something specifically(can't remember. Maybe a game?), and dBase just wasn't suited for it. I suggest you ask your kids what they want to do, and start from there. Even if they make a simple plot-based text game, they'll love it, because they made it. So long as you start with the basics, they should be okay. If they want to make a real application-type thing, I suggest you start them with(gasp!) VB - the drag-and-drop and nice GUI will facilitate your teaching.
Dave
BTW: Make sure you actually TEACH them. Don't just set them down in front of a computer with some program running.
I have never heard "lightweight" and "Emacs" in the same sentence.
Dave