Sorta feel a kinship with our l'il commie peons. Used to be I'd kinda pity them, what with their government limiting what they're able to access, trying to pull the whole big-brother thang off on the 'net.
...if you're unable to volunteer, what resources do you recommend to GUI skin designers? Where can they look to learn how to design better (read: more functional/less error-prone/more productive) GUIs?
What is this news posting going to accomplish, other than encouraging flamefests?
I'm not familiar with the Perl newsgroup, but I read the Python one regularly. It has been a friendly, open and sharing community... but over the past few months has experienced trolls that seem intent on disrupting the newsgroup.
Python is good. Perl is good. Different strokes for different folks. Python is based on some hard research into reducing errors and increasing maintainability; Perl seems to be based on accomplishing as much as possible using as few keystrokes as possible.
Both have their application. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.
And neither is going to benefit from the childish flamefests that seem to be popping up with increasing frequency. It would be better if Slashdot were to NOT contribute to this problem.
Check my posting several up, which refers to a legal document. My interpretation of it -- which may be voided; I believe a judge has ruled that the content is not software -- is that you're not allowed to use any mean you want.
It also seems to me that parallels can be drawn between what MPAA/CSS is doing, and that you're not allowed to haul a camcorder into a movie theatre to make a copy that you can take home. Even worse, in America at least, you're not even allowed to take your own food in.
And what about Polaroid Instamatics? AFAIK, you can only load Polaroid film into an Instamatic; and you can only load an Instamatic with Polaroid film. Kodak lost big-time in that fight. Isn't that the same as saying you can only load a DVD into Brand X/Y/Z players?
I think the bottom line is that the laws are not clearly stated, and are not even consistent between media formats, nor between audio versus visual media.
Breaking the law isn't the high road; it's the low road. You'll find it especially low when you end up jailed for breaking it. The law might be unfair, the punishment might be unfair, the whole damned scene might be unfair... but your sorry ass is still puckering tight when you drop the soap in the shower.
Problem is, breaking the law doesn't necessarily change the law, and it certainly puts your freedom at risk.
Taking the high road and challenging the constitutionality of the law doesn't risk your freedom.
It says (in Paragraph 1) "Insofar as loading, displaying, running, transmision or storage of the computer program necessitate such reproduction, such acts shall be subject to authorization by the rightholder."
To my reading, it means that the MPAA is well within its rights to not let you play DVD on Linux.
On the other hand, it seems that the judge has decided that DVD information isn't a 'computer program' (software); on yet another hand, they do state "...Member States shall protect computer programs, by copyright, as literary works within the meaning of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works."
...that people have chosen to make CSS pointless by doing things that are illegal. The laws--European and American--clearly state that the copyright holder has the right to dictate the means of playback. If MPAA doesn't want to license your machine, it doesn't have to and you can't legally do anything about it.
Now, like most of you, I agree that it's a stupid law and that the MPAA is acting like pricks. Doesn't bear on the il/legality of what's being done, though.
It would have been far more appropriate to challenge the MPAA in court. It would have put them on the defense.
But, no, instead, we have a bunch of ill-informed, self-righteous crackers who are not impressing the judges in any positive manner. At the rate things are going, MPAA will win and retain its right to tell you that you can't play back your DVD on unlicensed equipment.
Damn shame, but maybe there's a lesson to be learned: maintain the high road.
Read Steve McConnell's "Rapid Application Development" and "Code Complete."
With those in hand, you'll be much more prepared to organize a software project that achieves its goals on-time and on-budget, has the functionality needed by its end users, and is maintainable over the long term.
He bases his writing on hard fact: innumerable studies have been done that indicate what works and what doesn't in the programming and in managing programmers. Learn from the mistakes others have made before you!
And I suppose I'd best disclaim that it would be utterly foolish to dismiss these books out-of-hand simply because they are printed by Microsoft Press. I caution against being a simple-minded naysayer; if the books are no good, prove it by reading them.
('cause they'll influence you for the better, regardless what you think!)
Says to me that (in Paragraph 1) "Insofar as loading, displaying, running, transmision or storage of the computer program necessitate such reproduction, such acts shall be subject to authorization by the rightholder," meaning that the DVD guys are well within their rights to not let you play DVD on Linux; Further, "The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not permit the information obtained through its application: (a) to be used for goals other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created computer program; (b) to be given to others, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created computer program; or (c) to be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright," which seems to mean that DeCSS can't be distributed to others and perhaps can't even be developed seeing as it provides software functionality that is identical to existing DVD player software (tho' through other OSes). I think the evile movie empire moguls are trying to strike the fear of ghod into hackers... but I think they're also doing it well within the legal boundaries. Or so it seems from that legal text.
...person by person, country by country -- and starting with the corners of the world that are ignored: where there are barriers to language, barriers to affordability, barriers to access, barriers to the type of application that is needed.
China (slashdot story), Mexico (slashdot story), India... those are significant populations. It's a step in the right direction.
Remove language barriers: internationalize all parts of Linux.
Remove affordability barriers: release up-to-date packages that are designed to be useable on old 386 systems. In a lot of countries, Pentium are unaffordium.
Remove barriers to access: donate your old hardware to third-world countries. Help get Linux distributed -- donate a diskette-set to an emerging-world school.
Remove application barriers: internationalize applications. Identify what old software (running on DOS, Commodore, other old iron) should be ported to Linux.
Support the world outside of the little space you inhabit. Think outside the USA, think outside white Europe. Most of the world isn't like you. Look after them, and it'll pay back a hundredfold...
I'm saying nothing at all with regard to the deCSS thang.
I'm addressing the prevailing attitude that's being displayed: that things should be nailed down to the bloody floor to stop y'all from stealing it. And that if you don't use a big enough nail, then it's your own fault if it gets stolen.
Sure as hell says a lot about the state of our society when the victim is blamed for being victimized.
Intelligent agents are fine; it's nice to have something that'll fetch the news you want to read.
What I don't understand is why I'd want to *see* a talking head. *Listen* to a computer, sure... but watch an animation bob about? The animation doesn't add content -- it'd just be a distraction! Might as well play tetris as watch a talking head.
What would really be exciting is an intelligent agent that somehow could figure out what *else* one might be interested in... and not the obvious links, but the subtle, almost random sort of stuff.
I read a dozen news sources daily. But it's memepool, mainly, that provides me access to truly weird sites that make me go "hmmm.":-)
Speaking of which, how do *YOU* expand your interests, knowledge, news sources? Can't depend on C|Net, Wired and, I'm afraid, Slashdot to really give you a chance to find weird, wacky and wonderful shite. So what a person do to tap the web more widely?
Re:I think we're past worrying about wasted bandwi
on
Virtual Newscaster
·
· Score: 1
In the USA, perhaps. In Canada, you can't get away from ADSL and the @Home network. At prices that are the same as dialup+2nd line.
Not much of a surprise, though. Canada seems to always have the lead on the USA when it comes to telecom. But I think some Euro countries are even further ahead (I seem to remember very high-speed BBS access in places like Finland?(Norway?) about a decade ago...)
I simply don't understand why geeks who would normally turn up their noses at second-class products get so pumped about MP3.
You'd spend three hundred bucks on a videocard to get an extra 5fps and higher-res textures; you'd spend a couple hundred bucks on a 3D soundcard to get that rush from hearing a bullet ricochet beside your head; you want PC133 memory and an overclocked CPU -- and all because it's the best.
But you settle for MP3. It doesn't sound as good as CD. It doesn't sound as good as Sony MiniDisc. It doesn't match Yamaha's sound compression format, and it doesn't even match *Microsoft's* sound format!
I just don't get it. Instead of demanding a better product, everyone goes apeshit over a terrible lossy audio compression scheme that does all sorts of weird artifacting to the sound.
And then is happy to buy a Rio instead of a minidisc player.
...about the Switzerland's Roche trying to trademark "Linux" as a brand name for laundry detergent (see last month's Slashdot thread.)
Yet there seems to be great upset at the idea of applying it as a trademark for "computer related services." Not a trademark for "computer software," mind you, but as a trademark for something that might very well have absolutely nothing to do with software.
Now, before you consider this to be puerile flamebait, I'll admit that I think it's rather rude to use the name "Linux" for any product. I think using it as a detergent name is just plain stupid (outside of Switzerland, where it's apparently an established detergent name); and I think using it in reference to anything remotely computer-related is dishonest.
But, still... isn't it interesting where our buttons get pushed?
It's cool to name your new toilet paper "Linux."
But name your keyboard cleaning and repair company "Linux," and you'll burn in hell.
It is not a non-issue. The dialog box is not a solution to a poorly designed interface. Saving is the best choice only if you intended to exit; otherwise, you lose your Undo history. Cancelling is the best choice only if you didn't intend to click the close button; otherwise, it's just a PITA when you do want to exit.
Having the close button near the min/max buttons is, I repeat, a serious UI design flaw. It makes it too easy to ruin one's work, either by exitting without saving or saving the wrong information.
You, as an experienced user, don't have to have a better UI. If you're willing to risk the accidental close because you figure the time/speed saving is worth having the buttons right beside each other, then you can make the changes to your UI to make it so.
The default UI should be designed as the best possible UI in terms of ensuring that accidents are difficult, correct actions are easy, and efficiency is maximized.
This means that the menubar is fixed to the top of the screen, so that the cursor can't overshoot it. UI studies have demonstrated that top-aligned menus are significantly faster and less error-prone. The close button must be seperated from the min/max buttons, so that accidents are difficult (and #439's comments are well worth considering)... in fact, I'll go so far as to say there should be exactly three ways to exit: the File>Exit menu choice, the CTRL-key equivalent, and the KILL command.
Accidents should be difficult. Correct actions should be easy.
Linux GUIs can do better than the rest! Get the HCI guys to contribute their fact-based knowledge of good GUI design. You can still have your goofy, artsy, error-prone designs... just don't foist them on the newbies!
Good: the old window controls, with the "close" button a heckuva long ways from the max/min buttons.
Bad: the OS-X window controls, which put these buttons all beside each other.
Everyone who's encountered this crammed-together style has suffered data loss by accidently clicking the wrong button... not by way of momentary braindeath, but because the mouse overshot the button that was supposed to be clicked.
Here's a call to action: the default GUIs for Linux should be designed by Human-Computer Interface experts. Go find a friendly grad student or six, and convince them that they should contribute to the open community through a donation of their expert interface design skills.
The GUI can be done better! Emphasize lower error rates and higher throughput, and it'll be a superior product. Otherwise, it's just an also-ran, a clone of poor ideas and useless glitz.
I'm beta-testing Opera v4, Windows version. It's hit 99% CSS1 compliancy. The half-dozen or so minor render errors revealed by the W3C test pages have been reported and will be fixed. I fully expect v4 to be the first browser with 100% CSS1 compliance.
Opera's HTML rendering has always had very high compliance, and I expect that the HTMLv3.2 non-compliancy issues will be fully resolved in v4, and expect HTML v4 support to have near 100% compliancy.
What would *really* be a nice boost is if it were possible to access the RISC component of the Athlon (ie. bypass the x86 decoder).
Basically, that would allow one to run legacy apps by allowing the Athlon to operate as a smokin' fast x86... and run new apps by allowing the Athlon to operate as a smokin' RISC machine.
And if this could be done in a multitasked environment, so much the better -- running a legacy app *and* a new app simultaneously.
There are so many other embedded OSes out there, designed from the ground up to be run out of ROMs, with very little memory.
Microware OS-9 is one; it's a fantastic, multitasking, multiuser, uses device drivers that put Linux to shame, and does it in as little as sixteen kilobytes of memory. And it uses dirt-cheap processors that draw next to no power (compared to 386/486 CPUs).
QNX is another, with real-time interrupt processing and, again, exceptionally small memory footprint.
In comparison to those two OSes, and several others, it doesn't seem appropriate to use Linux as an embedded OS. It's not even reinventing the wheel: it's taking sliced bread and bashing it into the shape of a wheel...
Slashdot Mirror
Sorta feel a kinship with our l'il commie peons. Used to be I'd kinda pity them, what with their government limiting what they're able to access, trying to pull the whole big-brother thang off on the 'net.
And now we have the same.
I wonder when we'll lose our right to vote.
--
...if you're unable to volunteer, what resources do you recommend to GUI skin designers? Where can they look to learn how to design better (read: more functional/less error-prone/more productive) GUIs?
--
...an hour a week of your time and expertise to help the Linux community design a UI that does the right things right?
--
My bad; I followed-up the wrong message; it was directed at "possible", not you!
--
Against my better judgement, I'm going to respond to this troll:
Python uses whitespace as a delimiter because the language's creator did an actual useability study and discovered that whitespace is A Good Thing.
It's a language feature that will not change.
If you can't live with it, don't use Python. Trolling or arguing about it is pointless, childish and tiresome.
--
What is this news posting going to accomplish, other than encouraging flamefests?
I'm not familiar with the Perl newsgroup, but I read the Python one regularly. It has been a friendly, open and sharing community... but over the past few months has experienced trolls that seem intent on disrupting the newsgroup.
Python is good. Perl is good. Different strokes for different folks. Python is based on some hard research into reducing errors and increasing maintainability; Perl seems to be based on accomplishing as much as possible using as few keystrokes as possible.
Both have their application. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.
And neither is going to benefit from the childish flamefests that seem to be popping up with increasing frequency. It would be better if Slashdot were to NOT contribute to this problem.
--
Check my posting several up, which refers to a legal document. My interpretation of it -- which may be voided; I believe a judge has ruled that the content is not software -- is that you're not allowed to use any mean you want.
It also seems to me that parallels can be drawn between what MPAA/CSS is doing, and that you're not allowed to haul a camcorder into a movie theatre to make a copy that you can take home. Even worse, in America at least, you're not even allowed to take your own food in.
And what about Polaroid Instamatics? AFAIK, you can only load Polaroid film into an Instamatic; and you can only load an Instamatic with Polaroid film. Kodak lost big-time in that fight. Isn't that the same as saying you can only load a DVD into Brand X/Y/Z players?
I think the bottom line is that the laws are not clearly stated, and are not even consistent between media formats, nor between audio versus visual media.
--
Breaking the law isn't the high road; it's the low road. You'll find it especially low when you end up jailed for breaking it. The law might be unfair, the punishment might be unfair, the whole damned scene might be unfair... but your sorry ass is still puckering tight when you drop the soap in the shower.
Problem is, breaking the law doesn't necessarily change the law, and it certainly puts your freedom at risk.
Taking the high road and challenging the constitutionality of the law doesn't risk your freedom.
--
It seems to. Visit the legal wording.
It says (in Paragraph 1) "Insofar as loading, displaying, running, transmision or storage of the computer program necessitate such reproduction, such acts shall be subject to authorization by the rightholder."
To my reading, it means that the MPAA is well within its rights to not let you play DVD on Linux.
On the other hand, it seems that the judge has decided that DVD information isn't a 'computer program' (software); on yet another hand, they do state "...Member States shall protect computer programs, by copyright, as literary works within the meaning of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works."
--
...that people have chosen to make CSS pointless by doing things that are illegal. The laws--European and American--clearly state that the copyright holder has the right to dictate the means of playback. If MPAA doesn't want to license your machine, it doesn't have to and you can't legally do anything about it.
Now, like most of you, I agree that it's a stupid law and that the MPAA is acting like pricks. Doesn't bear on the il/legality of what's being done, though.
It would have been far more appropriate to challenge the MPAA in court. It would have put them on the defense.
But, no, instead, we have a bunch of ill-informed, self-righteous crackers who are not impressing the judges in any positive manner. At the rate things are going, MPAA will win and retain its right to tell you that you can't play back your DVD on unlicensed equipment.
Damn shame, but maybe there's a lesson to be learned: maintain the high road.
--
Read Steve McConnell's "Rapid Application Development" and "Code Complete."
With those in hand, you'll be much more prepared to organize a software project that achieves its goals on-time and on-budget, has the functionality needed by its end users, and is maintainable over the long term.
He bases his writing on hard fact: innumerable studies have been done that indicate what works and what doesn't in the programming and in managing programmers. Learn from the mistakes others have made before you!
And I suppose I'd best disclaim that it would be utterly foolish to dismiss these books out-of-hand simply because they are printed by Microsoft Press. I caution against being a simple-minded naysayer; if the books are no good, prove it by reading them.
('cause they'll influence you for the better, regardless what you think!)
--
Says to me that (in Paragraph 1) "Insofar as loading, displaying, running, transmision or storage of the computer program necessitate such reproduction, such acts shall be subject to authorization by the rightholder," meaning that the DVD guys are well within their rights to not let you play DVD on Linux; Further, "The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not permit the information obtained through its application: (a) to be used for goals other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created computer program; (b) to be given to others, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created computer program; or (c) to be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright," which seems to mean that DeCSS can't be distributed to others and perhaps can't even be developed seeing as it provides software functionality that is identical to existing DVD player software (tho' through other OSes). I think the evile movie empire moguls are trying to strike the fear of ghod into hackers... but I think they're also doing it well within the legal boundaries. Or so it seems from that legal text.
--
If you paid a spot of attention, you'll have noted that the DVD license states that it's licensed only for use on authorized playback equipment.
And your Linux boxen isn't authorized, of course.
So how do you, or any CSS hacker, figure you have any sort of legal leg to stand on?
--
China (slashdot story), Mexico (slashdot story), India... those are significant populations. It's a step in the right direction.
Remove language barriers: internationalize all parts of Linux.
Remove affordability barriers: release up-to-date packages that are designed to be useable on old 386 systems. In a lot of countries, Pentium are unaffordium.
Remove barriers to access: donate your old hardware to third-world countries. Help get Linux distributed -- donate a diskette-set to an emerging-world school.
Remove application barriers: internationalize applications. Identify what old software (running on DOS, Commodore, other old iron) should be ported to Linux.
Support the world outside of the little space you inhabit. Think outside the USA, think outside white Europe. Most of the world isn't like you. Look after them, and it'll pay back a hundredfold...
--
Er, yeah. Like the "illegal" product tying of Sony MiniDisc with...
...why, a Sony MiniDisc player. Until they licensed the technology.
I'd think of other, better examples, but it's not worth it for such an obviously wrong assertion.
--
I'm saying nothing at all with regard to the deCSS thang.
I'm addressing the prevailing attitude that's being displayed: that things should be nailed down to the bloody floor to stop y'all from stealing it. And that if you don't use a big enough nail, then it's your own fault if it gets stolen.
Sure as hell says a lot about the state of our society when the victim is blamed for being victimized.
Gah.
--
Intelligent agents are fine; it's nice to have something that'll fetch the news you want to read.
:-)
What I don't understand is why I'd want to *see* a talking head. *Listen* to a computer, sure... but watch an animation bob about? The animation doesn't add content -- it'd just be a distraction! Might as well play tetris as watch a talking head.
What would really be exciting is an intelligent agent that somehow could figure out what *else* one might be interested in... and not the obvious links, but the subtle, almost random sort of stuff.
I read a dozen news sources daily. But it's memepool, mainly, that provides me access to truly weird sites that make me go "hmmm."
Speaking of which, how do *YOU* expand your interests, knowledge, news sources? Can't depend on C|Net, Wired and, I'm afraid, Slashdot to really give you a chance to find weird, wacky and wonderful shite. So what a person do to tap the web more widely?
In the USA, perhaps. In Canada, you can't get away from ADSL and the @Home network. At prices that are the same as dialup+2nd line.
Not much of a surprise, though. Canada seems to always have the lead on the USA when it comes to telecom. But I think some Euro countries are even further ahead (I seem to remember very high-speed BBS access in places like Finland?(Norway?) about a decade ago...)
I simply don't understand why geeks who would normally turn up their noses at second-class products get so pumped about MP3.
You'd spend three hundred bucks on a videocard to get an extra 5fps and higher-res textures; you'd spend a couple hundred bucks on a 3D soundcard to get that rush from hearing a bullet ricochet beside your head; you want PC133 memory and an overclocked CPU -- and all because it's the best.
But you settle for MP3. It doesn't sound as good as CD. It doesn't sound as good as Sony MiniDisc. It doesn't match Yamaha's sound compression format, and it doesn't even match *Microsoft's* sound format!
I just don't get it. Instead of demanding a better product, everyone goes apeshit over a terrible lossy audio compression scheme that does all sorts of weird artifacting to the sound.
And then is happy to buy a Rio instead of a minidisc player.
Give your heads a shake!
Yet there seems to be great upset at the idea of applying it as a trademark for "computer related services." Not a trademark for "computer software," mind you, but as a trademark for something that might very well have absolutely nothing to do with software.
Now, before you consider this to be puerile flamebait, I'll admit that I think it's rather rude to use the name "Linux" for any product. I think using it as a detergent name is just plain stupid (outside of Switzerland, where it's apparently an established detergent name); and I think using it in reference to anything remotely computer-related is dishonest.
But, still... isn't it interesting where our buttons get pushed?
It's cool to name your new toilet paper "Linux."
But name your keyboard cleaning and repair company "Linux," and you'll burn in hell.
Message #439 got it most right. Brilliant ideas.
It is not a non-issue. The dialog box is not a solution to a poorly designed interface. Saving is the best choice only if you intended to exit; otherwise, you lose your Undo history. Cancelling is the best choice only if you didn't intend to click the close button; otherwise, it's just a PITA when you do want to exit.
Having the close button near the min/max buttons is, I repeat, a serious UI design flaw. It makes it too easy to ruin one's work, either by exitting without saving or saving the wrong information.
You , as an experienced user, don't have to have a better UI. If you're willing to risk the accidental close because you figure the time/speed saving is worth having the buttons right beside each other, then you can make the changes to your UI to make it so.
The default UI should be designed as the best possible UI in terms of ensuring that accidents are difficult, correct actions are easy, and efficiency is maximized.
This means that the menubar is fixed to the top of the screen, so that the cursor can't overshoot it. UI studies have demonstrated that top-aligned menus are significantly faster and less error-prone. The close button must be seperated from the min/max buttons, so that accidents are difficult (and #439's comments are well worth considering)... in fact, I'll go so far as to say there should be exactly three ways to exit: the File>Exit menu choice, the CTRL-key equivalent, and the KILL command.
Accidents should be difficult. Correct actions should be easy.
Linux GUIs can do better than the rest! Get the HCI guys to contribute their fact-based knowledge of good GUI design. You can still have your goofy, artsy, error-prone designs... just don't foist them on the newbies!
Bad: the OS-X window controls, which put these buttons all beside each other.
Everyone who's encountered this crammed-together style has suffered data loss by accidently clicking the wrong button... not by way of momentary braindeath, but because the mouse overshot the button that was supposed to be clicked.
Here's a call to action: the default GUIs for Linux should be designed by Human-Computer Interface experts. Go find a friendly grad student or six, and convince them that they should contribute to the open community through a donation of their expert interface design skills.
The GUI can be done better! Emphasize lower error rates and higher throughput, and it'll be a superior product. Otherwise, it's just an also-ran, a clone of poor ideas and useless glitz.
I'm beta-testing Opera v4, Windows version. It's hit 99% CSS1 compliancy. The half-dozen or so minor render errors revealed by the W3C test pages have been reported and will be fixed. I fully expect v4 to be the first browser with 100% CSS1 compliance.
Opera's HTML rendering has always had very high compliance, and I expect that the HTMLv3.2 non-compliancy issues will be fully resolved in v4, and expect HTML v4 support to have near 100% compliancy.
What would *really* be a nice boost is if it were possible to access the RISC component of the Athlon (ie. bypass the x86 decoder).
Basically, that would allow one to run legacy apps by allowing the Athlon to operate as a smokin' fast x86... and run new apps by allowing the Athlon to operate as a smokin' RISC machine.
And if this could be done in a multitasked environment, so much the better -- running a legacy app *and* a new app simultaneously.
Too much to hope for, I'm sure!
There are so many other embedded OSes out there, designed from the ground up to be run out of ROMs, with very little memory.
Microware OS-9 is one; it's a fantastic, multitasking, multiuser, uses device drivers that put Linux to shame, and does it in as little as sixteen kilobytes of memory. And it uses dirt-cheap processors that draw next to no power (compared to 386/486 CPUs).
QNX is another, with real-time interrupt processing and, again, exceptionally small memory footprint.
In comparison to those two OSes, and several others, it doesn't seem appropriate to use Linux as an embedded OS. It's not even reinventing the wheel: it's taking sliced bread and bashing it into the shape of a wheel...