I'm not sure I agree that Linux needs a good Rapid Application Developement tool.. In my experience, all RAD gets you is quickly rolled out, badly implemented, non-source havin', bloated applications, that don't have a good design.
If you try and develop an application for the here and now, for the short term.. you will end up with the mess Microsoft has. They needed an OS for the IBM PC... they bought a quick and dirty (RAD) hack called QDOS. Then they RAD'ed a GUI ontop of it called Windows, instead of going with a better design they were working on with IBM.. a little thing called OS/2... then they patched a 32-bit API ontop of DOS, and called that Windows 95... then patched thier patched Win32 API ontop of a VMS clone, and called that NT.
I disagree. Knowing what video card you have should be as irrelevant to the average computer user as knowing what model number of engine in your car is irrelevant to the average driver. You just use it. This isn't totally the fault of software, though. Hardware manufacturers could go a long way towards making their equipment truely plug and play. Frankly, I think things such as video cards and hard drives should be similar to PCMCIA... hot swappable and transparently installed. Got the new kick-ass 3D accelarator? Pop it in, rock and roll. (This however, is even more a digression).
When's the last time you changed the engine in your car? When's the last time you added a component to your car? And when you did, didn't you have to know details like models numbers and makes?
Why do some people expect so much more from computers?
I remember having a conversation with a young teenager.
"My parents got a new car yesterday!" (all excited) "Oh, really?", I said, "What kind did they get?" "Oh, it's a blue one! It's really cute!", she replied, oblivious.
Here are the first three passages of the code on the Kryptos statue as deciphered by Jim Gillogly, including misspellings (of "illusion," "underground" and "desperately"). The second passage identifies a location near the C.I.A. headquarters; the third is taken from Howard Carter's account of the opening of King Tut's tomb in 1922.
------------------------------------------------ --- Related Article C.I.A.'s Artistic Enigma Yields All but Final Clue (June 16, 1999) ------------------------------------------------ ---
1. Between subtle shading and the absence of light lies the nuance of iqlusion.
2. It was totally invisible.
How's that possible? They used the earth's magnetic field. x The information was gathered and transmitted undergruund to an unknown location. x Does Langley know about this? They should: it's buried out there somewhere. x Who knows the exact location? Only WW. This was his last message. x Thirty-eight degrees fifty-seven minutes six point five seconds north, seventy-seven degrees eight minutes forty-four seconds west. ID by rows.
3. Slowly, desparatly slowly, the remains of passage debris that encumbered the lower part of the doorway was removed.
With trembling hands I made a tiny breach in the upper left-hand corner. And then, widening the hole a little, I inserted the candle and peered in. The hot air escaping from the chamber caused the flame to flicker, but presently details of the room within emerged from the mist. x Can you see anything?
As many others have said here, the local channels thing is a pain in the arse, however, I don't tend to watch the big networks anyway... And I can check the web, or newspaper for local news.
I personally would go with DirecTV and a DSS system.. that way you can pick the brand of reciever you want to have.
Picture Quality on DSS is only slightly lower than DVD Quality, you notice artifacts sometimes (I think they lower the bit rate for some programming). I haven't ever noticed artifacts while watching pay per view movies though. DSS uses the same technology as DVD, MPEG-2.
Sound Quality is superb on DSS, with most if not all channels in Stereo, and sometimes with Dolby Prologic.
If you buy a Sony AD-4 or an RCA DRD515 reciever you can recieve true 6-channel Dolby Digital 5.1 Sound...
You will need a reciever with a Dolby Digital Decoder built in it (watch out for "Dolby Digital Ready" receivers, this is NOT the same)
Basically, your DSS with have a ToSLink Optical out, which you will hook up to your DD reciever's Optical In. (My Sony 825 has an actual DSS input)
This optical cable will carry the AC-3 compressed digital signal. AC-3 is like six channel MP3, but with a slightly less lossy compression than MP3.
The decoder will decompress the AC-3 signal, and route the sound seperately to center, front right, front left, right rear, left rear, and subwoofer speakers.
The end result is incredible. Quite a few of the pay per view movies are broadcast in Dolby Digital now, and I heard rumors that HBO and the like would eventually start broadcasting in DD.
Go buy yourself a copy of Joe Kane Productions Video Essentials on DVD and properly adjust your television set.
Even without this disc, the best thing you can do is to turn the sharpness control OFF. As in ALL the way down. Sharpness add ARTIFICAL information to the picture to give it the apperance of sharpness. This tends to magnify the MPEG compression would wouldn't normally see.
As far as I'm concerned 44Khz 16-bit Audio CD's sound great, and I'd dare any audiophile to prove otherwise in a blind listening test.
As for DVD-Audio, I don't see what the point is... Why can't you simply make a DVD that includes sound without a picture? The sound is already in Dolby Digital 5.1 (AC-3) on most movies, and with the capacity of DVD's, you could put a DD 2.0 Stereo track on there as well.. Bands could start using DD 5.1 to their advantage to do some really creative things...
Ooo, I forgot, DD is compressed, just like MP3 is. Well, guess what.. Same challenge to the audiophiles.. let's take a blind test.
Because a driver runs in kernel space, and can affect performance, and stability of the whole operating system.
If I find a bug in one of these drivers, the hardware maker has my hands tied.. I can't fix it.
Hardware maker should be encouraged to release hardware specifications! This is going in the opposite direction from what we want.
I for one hope Linus and Co. don't accept any patches to support UDI in the kernel. We have to stand up for freedom.
This could very well cause a kernel split, and that bothers me, but I think most people would still use Linus' kernel if he decides to take a stand on this issue.
Does anyone have any links pointing to Linus' viewpoint on UDI?
It's more like "Oh.. Apple put some things in their license that a) we didn't think of in the beginning but that b) we disagree with."
So they drafted a new definition to cover the ideas in the APSL they didn't agree with.
Doesn't have anything to do with a personal grudge as far as I can see.
Maybe I'm just not being open minded...
on
iMac Linux
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but as Linus said in his recent article on Linuxworld, Linux is NOT Unix. It's a new operating system. And it originally started out on Intel 386 processors. Besides, nowdays the differences between RISC and CISC are very blurred. For instance, the Pentium Pro, PII, and AMD K6 all have "RISC cores"
"If all the reports of the high web server speeds on Macs are true, this is truely awesome. We'll have access to some of the most efficient network code there is. We'll also get to see the base that X server will need to run off of, if you want to kill the Mac Finder, and run an X Server instead. Does that make all you Mac Haters happy? You can have the high speed/and/ your X."
We already do. It's called LinuxPPC. I doubt that anything running UNDER Mach could be as fast as a native monolithic kernel;)
Stallman may have not come up with the idea...
on
RMS vs. ESR
·
· Score: 1
While I agree that some software was free before Stallman created the FSF. RMS was the first person to come up with a method to LEGALLY protect free software from becoming proprietary software.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure I agree that Linux needs a good Rapid Application Developement tool.. In my experience, all RAD gets you is quickly rolled out, badly implemented, non-source havin', bloated applications, that don't have a good design.
If you try and develop an application for the here and now, for the short term.. you will end up with the mess Microsoft has. They needed an OS for the IBM PC... they bought a quick and dirty (RAD) hack called QDOS. Then they RAD'ed a GUI ontop of it called Windows, instead of going with a better design they were working on with IBM.. a little thing called OS/2... then they patched a 32-bit API ontop of DOS, and called that Windows 95... then patched thier patched Win32 API ontop of a VMS clone, and called that NT.
But they did it rapidly didn't they?
What's sad is.. that's NOT NT.
That's Windows 9x.
Could someone with more knowledge of Windows NT please explain something to me...
How does a process "hide" in NT? Is this a "feature" of NT? Is it an undocumented feature? Or it BO2K using an exploit to do this?
If you run BO2K as a regular user, isn't it limited to that user's rights, just like in unix? If not, how does BO2K gain superuser access?
Is this really Microsoft's fault? Or is BO2K not as harmful as everyone makes it out to be?
But you can hit F1 in the Redhat Installer and get the description of the package.
Have you ever tried it?
I disagree. Knowing what video card you have should be as irrelevant to the average computer user as knowing what model number of engine in your car is irrelevant to the average driver. You just use it. This isn't totally the fault of software, though. Hardware manufacturers could go a long way towards making their equipment truely plug and play. Frankly, I think things such as video cards and hard drives should be similar to PCMCIA... hot swappable and transparently installed. Got the new kick-ass 3D accelarator? Pop it in, rock and roll. (This however, is even more a digression).
When's the last time you changed the engine in your car? When's the last time you added a component to your car? And when you did, didn't you have to know details like models numbers and makes?
Why do some people expect so much more from computers?
I remember having a conversation with a young teenager.
"My parents got a new car yesterday!" (all excited)
"Oh, really?", I said, "What kind did they get?"
"Oh, it's a blue one! It's really cute!", she replied, oblivious.
The transciever module is preset to module 1, but DOES accept remote on and off codes.
The other modules, a lamp module, recieves on off dim and bright codes.
I did an experiment also.
Using VMWARE, I tried installing Windows NT Workstation 4.0 with varying memory settings. Here's the results.
8 MB = Refused to Install
12 MB = Refused to Install
16 MB = Installed, ran slowly
32 MB = Installed, ran much better than 16MB.
Then after I installed with 32MB, I started reducing the RAM on the already installed NT.
32 MB = Booted fine, as expected.
16 MB = Booted fine, but slower.
12 MB = Booted fine, but really really slow.
8 MB = Blue Screen of Death on bootup.
I thought it was interested that the installation program wouldn't let you install with 12MB, but that NT would boot with 12MB.
Try using "expert" mode to install Redhat.
It lets you continue without a swap partition then.
Yes.
It's called the Redhat Linux Installation Program.
And it's GPLed.. with source.
June 16, 1999
- --- - ---
The Kryptos Code Unmasked
Here are the first three passages of the code on the Kryptos statue as
deciphered by Jim Gillogly, including misspellings (of "illusion," "underground"
and "desperately"). The second passage identifies a location near the C.I.A.
headquarters; the third is taken from Howard Carter's account of the opening of
King Tut's tomb in 1922.
-----------------------------------------------
Related Article
C.I.A.'s Artistic Enigma Yields All but Final Clue
(June 16, 1999)
-----------------------------------------------
1. Between subtle shading and the absence of light lies the nuance of iqlusion.
2. It was totally invisible.
How's that possible? They used the earth's magnetic field. x The information was
gathered and transmitted undergruund to an unknown location. x Does Langley know
about this? They should: it's buried out there somewhere. x Who knows the exact
location? Only WW. This was his last message. x Thirty-eight degrees fifty-seven
minutes six point five seconds north, seventy-seven degrees eight minutes
forty-four seconds west. ID by rows.
3. Slowly, desparatly slowly, the remains of passage debris that encumbered the
lower part of the doorway was removed.
With trembling hands I made a tiny breach in the upper left-hand corner. And
then, widening the hole a little, I inserted the candle and peered in. The hot
air escaping from the chamber caused the flame to flicker, but presently details
of the room within emerged from the mist. x Can you see anything?
Give in to your hatred...
As many others have said here, the local channels thing is a pain in the arse, however, I don't tend to watch the big networks anyway... And I can check the web, or newspaper for local news.
I personally would go with DirecTV and a DSS system.. that way you can pick the brand of reciever you want to have.
Picture Quality on DSS is only slightly lower than DVD Quality, you notice artifacts sometimes (I think they lower the bit rate for some programming). I haven't ever noticed artifacts while watching pay per view movies though.
DSS uses the same technology as DVD, MPEG-2.
Sound Quality is superb on DSS, with most if not all channels in Stereo, and sometimes with Dolby Prologic.
If you buy a Sony AD-4 or an RCA DRD515 reciever you can recieve true 6-channel Dolby Digital 5.1 Sound...
You will need a reciever with a Dolby Digital Decoder built in it (watch out for "Dolby Digital Ready" receivers, this is NOT the same)
Basically, your DSS with have a ToSLink Optical out, which you will hook up to your DD reciever's Optical In. (My Sony 825 has an actual DSS input)
This optical cable will carry the AC-3 compressed digital signal. AC-3 is like six channel MP3, but with a slightly less lossy compression than MP3.
The decoder will decompress the AC-3 signal, and route the sound seperately to center, front right, front left, right rear, left rear, and subwoofer speakers.
The end result is incredible. Quite a few of the pay per view movies are broadcast in Dolby Digital now, and I heard rumors that HBO and the like would eventually start broadcasting in DD.
You are of course assuming the universe is finite in size.
If it's infinite, there isn't a center.
Think of the balloon metaphor from earlier.
Now imagine the balloon is infinitely big.
It's hard to visualize.
ZDTV's live feed is tucked away at http://www.leoville.com
Go buy yourself a copy of Joe Kane Productions Video Essentials on DVD and properly adjust your television set.
Even without this disc, the best thing you can do is to turn the sharpness control OFF. As in ALL the way down.
Sharpness add ARTIFICAL information to the picture to give it the apperance of sharpness. This tends to magnify the MPEG compression would wouldn't normally see.
About the email, it's because, unfortunately my friend Utox, people are idiots and will email it even when it's in the globally accessible folder.
As far as I'm concerned 44Khz 16-bit Audio CD's sound great, and I'd dare any audiophile to prove otherwise in a blind listening test.
As for DVD-Audio, I don't see what the point is... Why can't you simply make a DVD that includes sound without a picture? The sound is already in Dolby Digital 5.1 (AC-3) on most movies, and with the capacity of DVD's, you could put a DD 2.0 Stereo track on there as well.. Bands could start using DD 5.1 to their advantage to do some really creative things...
Ooo, I forgot, DD is compressed, just like MP3 is. Well, guess what.. Same challenge to the audiophiles.. let's take a blind test.
Because a driver runs in kernel space, and can affect performance, and stability of the whole operating system.
If I find a bug in one of these drivers, the hardware maker has my hands tied.. I can't fix it.
Hardware maker should be encouraged to release hardware specifications! This is going in the opposite direction from what we want.
I for one hope Linus and Co. don't accept any patches to support UDI in the kernel. We have to stand up for freedom.
This could very well cause a kernel split, and that bothers me, but I think most people would still use Linus' kernel if he decides to take a stand on this issue.
Does anyone have any links pointing to Linus' viewpoint on UDI?
It's more like "Oh.. Apple put some things in their license that a) we didn't think of in the beginning but that b) we disagree with."
So they drafted a new definition to cover the ideas in the APSL they didn't agree with.
Doesn't have anything to do with a personal grudge as far as I can see.
Yes, but as Linus said in his recent article on Linuxworld, Linux is NOT Unix. It's a new operating system. And it originally started out on Intel 386 processors. Besides, nowdays the differences between RISC and CISC are very blurred. For instance, the Pentium Pro, PII, and AMD K6 all have "RISC cores"
Try installing KDE and using KFM as a web browser.
It's almost as good at rendering pages as Netscape, is actually a little faster than Netscape, and the only thing lacking is Java support.
Just for your own amusement, keep in mind that the RPM fairy comes complete with source code, a man page, and --help.
And for those compiling from source, there's a special SRPM fairy, that will "magically" create RPMs that the RPM Fairy can install.
The sad bit of this is that there's nothing magical or proprietary about RPM... The source is out there, it's GPL'd and even documented very well.
The only reason it seems "magical" to Slackware users is they are too lazy to learn about it. I know.. I used to be one.
Echo "Recovering Slackware addict"
In french Anorak means "jacket"
"If all the reports of the high web server speeds on Macs are true, this is truely awesome. We'll have access to some of the /and/
;)
most efficient network code there is. We'll also get to see the base that X server will need to run off of, if you want to kill the
Mac Finder, and run an X Server instead. Does that make all you Mac Haters happy? You can have the high speed
your X."
We already do. It's called LinuxPPC. I doubt that anything running UNDER Mach could be as fast as a native monolithic kernel
While I agree that some software was free before Stallman created the FSF. RMS was the first person to come up with a method to LEGALLY protect free software from becoming proprietary software.