> I don't really know how you've drawn this conclusion, I never stated it *has* to be done for every application, only that when it's appropriate for an application to have predefined layout it would be better if the window manager made a better job of following those guidelines, and *only* repositioning windows against the directive if a valid reason to do so (such as being off-screen, obstructing a toolbar, etc) exists.
Which are also the only reasons why most window managers try to change the initial display of an application. That is, unless the user has saved preferences for that application.
There are exceptions, and some window managers give the user the option of overriding this and always let the window manager decideon the initial display even when there would be no problems. In many cases this is a choice by the user.
> I don't claim to know better than the user, only the window manager which has very little concept of logic to be able to position an applications widows in context to each other.
So put them inside a workarea if that is really important. For that matter, I have yet to see the Gimp fail in this regardless of the Window manager I use. (you can argue a lot about if user interface of the Gimp is logical and such, that is not the point, the point is that it manages very well to start with its windows nicely grouped together)
> Jesus F. Christ, this is the good part, you finally get it, tell me you get it, and then proceed to tell me it's not a good argument to my case, when what you just stated *is* my case.
When the window manager is buggy, use another window manager or fix it. Solving this by havign your application override the window manager is not the proper solution.
You still don't seem to get my point here. Your observation may be right, but your solution is not the proper one for the problem you are having.
> Yes but I'm a human/user and I have a rough idea for a good starting point, after which the user can tweak it however he likes. Also, never heard of usability-testing?
THe situation resulting from what you suggest is that this has to be doen for each and every application someone uses. It is definitely better for the user if they can do that in one central place, which happens to be the window manager.
That your application suggests an initial position and size is good, you know betetr then the end user what woudl work for your application initially.
That said, whenever I encounter an application that tries to get around the saved window positions that my wm tries to 'enforce', I will start looking for an alternative. I have good reason to size and position windows in a certain way and have the window manager restore them in that way, and I find applications that try to get around that extremely annoying.
When Windows was relatively new, many applications tried to 'force' their own window sizing and positioning on the user, often by creating a screen sized work area and keepign all their windows in there.
Some applications that did this.. Excel Lotus 123 Word WP
You will notice when trying any of those applications in modern versions, that they stopped trying this, and rather let the gui decidde.
When you look at X based applications, the same story applies (OpenOffice just for one example)
There is a good reason for this, it has been shown again and again and again that users find this behavior extremely annoying and disturbing for doing their work. You really believe you know better then this?
> If a window placement is impractical then I have no problem with the window manager repositioning it. My problem is when it moves a window to an absurd position when there is no logical reason to do so.
Your problem is a buggy window manager then. Provided that the Window manager does placement properly, the problem you describve does not exist. Hence, I do not see why this is a good argument for your case, it is however a good argument for saying that there are buggy window managers that do not handle this properly.
> So because I have a negative opinion about some aspects of some window systems, that somehow relates to me not understanding them? I understand them, but that doesn't change the fact their not perfect.
Your post indeed suggests you do not understand the purpose of a general purpose windowing system.
General purpose windowing systems have limitations and one of them is the one you encountered. All I said is that if you cannot live with that limitation, you should use an alternative that does not have this limitation because that limitation is there for a very good reason. When developing for a general purpose system that is shared by multiple applications, it is simply a very bad idea to act as if the rest of those applications do not exist or are irrelevant. I'd really suggest leaving such decisions to the user or administrator of such a machine.
It is not like alternatives do not exist, but they have their own limitations. You can have a very good reason for wanting full control over window placement and such, and I am not trying to say that there are no valid situations where this can happen. I am however sayign that a general purpose windowing system is not the solution in such situations.
if you want control over window placement like that, you either define a workspace for your windows to recide in, or you just rethink your idea.
1. Your application has no fucking clue abotu how the user wants their windows displayed 2. Your application has as little clue about what the rest of the display is used for.
The window manager however has a bit of a clue about both, so it IS the proper place for deciding on window placement. All your application should ever try to do is give a suggestion.
Sorry to say, but if you do not udnerstand this then imo you have not understood what a windowsing system is for.
In short, when you develop for a shared gui environment (ie, the gui is also used for other things then your application) you do NOT have control over window placement, deal with it or write your own dedicated gui, it is the nature of the beast.
Did you ever consider that OOo might in fact have features that simply cannot be saved in MS word format? This does not mean at all that you cannot make MS word format documents, it just means that it has the same limitations as for exampel Office 2000 when tryign to save a MS word 6 document. It simply cannot save things in that format when the features needed are not supported, but it can create readable MS word 6 documents pretty well.
Yeah.. having a small builtin screen is what most current home entertainment systems are lacking. I don't want to turn on by big tv screen just for selecting a bunch of audio tracks.
Never tried it, but there seem to be c64 emulators for PPC handhelds at least, and when you have some Linux based handheld, there should be little in the way fo compiling vice for it to get a full c64 emulator.
PalmOS? not that I know.. on the other hand, quite a few c64 games exist on PalmOS natively (I'm sorof addicted to the spy hunter version for it at the moment)
> Sid Emulation:( I want the chip. Damn Sidstation for buying all the chips. Can anyone refer me to a review of how good the emulation is?
I can't... but I have yet to hear a SID emulation that is better then tollerable for gaming, and I would be really surprised if this one is any better.
> What was the cooling problem, was that with the controler, power supply, or the drive? IIRC you could replace the drives with the same bloody thing the PC uses. Not sure how easy it would be to replace the power supply.
The problem was more that a 1541 is an almost complete computer in its own right. It has a cpu (6502), ram (4k) and some i/o ports to control the drive (which is not the same as a pc 5.25" drive either). So no, replacign the drive and/or controller by a PC one wont work.
The heating problem is the simple result of lots of electronics in a too small space without proper cooling.
> One of the neat things I found out from the entry was that the electrical interface for the video on C64 that exists in RCA component form is basically the same as S-Video
Yes, and as a nice side effect, displays intended for those machiens often amke for very good s-video monitors also.
Hmm.. sticking an itx based system is a SX64 case is a neat idea btw.. maybe I should take a peek at that for my home entertainment system.
Lets see... quick peek on kazaa, edonkey and the like turns up about ever tv show I'd like to watch.. quuick roaming of usenet turns up newsgroups with the most recent episodes of almost any series you might be interested in..
Now tell me, how is this anywhere new? If the TV broadcasters don't like it, they shoudl cosnider a few things first. - Many TV programs I am interested in are not broadcasted on any channel I can receive here. - Those that are broadcasted here are often showed at impossible times.
Fix those 2 issues (the later is very simple, just actively support time shifting instead of trying to oppose it, and the issue is gone) and people have very little reason to pirate TV content.
> I'm taking a big gamble here, and hoping you're just not trolling for a cheap argument...
I can't talk for the grantparent of course, but the questions put up there are ones that occur to many outside observers with regards to the USA, so I doubt grantparent was trolling. Thanks for your view on this btw. It helps to at least understand what is happening.
> Why should that company that invested all the time and resources into laying those lines just roll over and let somebody else piggy back off of their investment? It is not a matter of monopoly but a matter of a high cost and high risk investment sane business people are not willing to make. Unless you are willing to pay for extra lines and enjoy the sight of them you might want to check your facts and shat up till then.
Verizon invested a lot in cables, and have been overtaken by technology. Too fucking bad for them, that is the risk of doing business, they should have kep thteir eyes open and offer what their customers wanted.
When the government jumps in to bar competition to a company while that company simply failed to adapt, that government helps in the creation of a monopoly and a bad one for that.
> No, the latest version for EVERYONE is IE6 SP2. If they're still using an older OS, that's tough shit for them.
Except for those that need Windows 2000 for other software they NEED for running their business, and those that need software that is incompatible with SP2 and and..
> You can't say "Well the latest version of Windows is XP, but some people decided not to upgrade so the latest version for them is 2000." It just makes no sense.
Microsoft supports Windows 2000, people pay for that support, why the fuck should they have to pay yet again to get an incomaptible OS?
You are not makign a well thought out argument there, not to say you are being stupid.
And I know people with XP home who still have similar problems pretty regularely.
Also, it was not a problem during transition, but as a result of installing a zillion applicatiosn that need dlls with the same name (but different code)
THis still happens today and is in no way fixed by the Windows installer.
> The problem of smaller publishers generally is not that their works are pirated, but that they can't generate enough interest in them at all.
Quite true, and I don't think I ever claimed piracy to be the primary or even a very relevant problem for them. All I said is that criminalizing non comemrcial copying favors them more then big publishers (and I don't think piracy is a big issue for big publishers either for that matter)
> and b) is irrelevant since what constitutes a commercial basis is amazingly more than you'd think. You need to read the law!
> Actually P2P filesharing is easily prosecuted under the current laws, and would be even more easily prosecuted under the proposed law. It generally is commercial, the way that term is specifically defined in the law.
You realize you are contradicting yourself here? Either the standard is very high and it is difficult to impossibel to have P2P sharing covered by it, or it is not very difficult. It cannnot be both at the same time.
> This really only goes to show that you haven't read through the law carefully and that you don't have a good understanding of the issues.
No, it shows 2 things: 1. you haven't thought about what I am saying 2. you consider anyone who disagrees with your view as not knowign the issues.
Please read more carefully and think about what is being said before replying.
> First, whether or not a criminal action is brought is entirely up to the DoJ. They don't bother with small cases. They go after large scale piracy operations, which are pretty inevitably dealing with works whose copyrights are held by the big copyright interests.
This has all to do with the scale of infringement and not the scale of the publisher. That is also the right way to set priorities.
Currently a small independent publisher basicly has no option of going after non comemrcial copyright infringement, regardless of the scale at which it happens. Large publishers do have the means to go after that. That situation is changed, and that works in the advantage of the small publisher.
Also, currently the DoH can't go after individuals sharing files on a non comemrcial basis and obviously they don't bother trying either.
> Second, there have been criminal penalties on the books for over a century. So if it were going to have a positive impact, it would've already done so, one would imagine.
Those come into play when dealing with commercial copyright infringement, which is a different thign then filesharing on p2p networks. Different situation and not much related to this.
> In a couple of years we'll get sued for singing a song in the shower or re-enacting a movie scene without paying royalties.
If you'd do either in a public place you can already be fined for it (and dependign on where you live, the showering in public might get you another fine)
The interesting thing is that criminalizing copyright violations in the end favors the 'little' guy a lot more then the big music and movie producers. It gives a level of protection to the idnependent publisher that they simply cannot afford right now.
Also, currently copyright is mostly enforced by big corporations bullying individuals with civil suits. Imho that is not a proper way to enforce a law.
The problem I see is not how copyright is enforced, but what is covered by copyright and for how long.
Current copyright law does not encourage production of art, rather, it stimulates the creation and hording of comemrcial works regardless of artistic content, thereby failing in its purpose.
I'd be all for criminalizing copyright infringement given that copyright is limited to somewhere below 25 years with a one time extention to maybe 40 years.
In both cases it is control over the means of production, being it food, programming methods, broadcasting rights or otherwise, so indeed there is little difference there (there are other differences, ie, feodalism having to do with how a country is governed while capitalism is an economic system)
Slashdot Mirror
> I don't really know how you've drawn this conclusion, I never stated it *has* to be done for every application, only that when it's appropriate for an application to have predefined layout it would be better if the window manager made a better job of following those guidelines, and *only* repositioning windows against the directive if a valid reason to do so (such as being off-screen, obstructing a toolbar, etc) exists.
Which are also the only reasons why most window managers try to change the initial display of an application. That is, unless the user has saved preferences for that application.
There are exceptions, and some window managers give the user the option of overriding this and always let the window manager decideon the initial display even when there would be no problems. In many cases this is a choice by the user.
> I don't claim to know better than the user, only the window manager which has very little concept of logic to be able to position an applications widows in context to each other.
So put them inside a workarea if that is really important. For that matter, I have yet to see the Gimp fail in this regardless of the Window manager I use. (you can argue a lot about if user interface of the Gimp is logical and such, that is not the point, the point is that it manages very well to start with its windows nicely grouped together)
> Jesus F. Christ, this is the good part, you finally get it, tell me you get it, and then proceed to tell me it's not a good argument to my case, when what you just stated *is* my case.
When the window manager is buggy, use another window manager or fix it. Solving this by havign your application override the window manager is not the proper solution.
You still don't seem to get my point here. Your observation may be right, but your solution is not the proper one for the problem you are having.
> Yes but I'm a human/user and I have a rough idea for a good starting point, after which the user can tweak it however he likes. Also, never heard of usability-testing?
THe situation resulting from what you suggest is that this has to be doen for each and every application someone uses. It is definitely better for the user if they can do that in one central place, which happens to be the window manager.
That your application suggests an initial position and size is good, you know betetr then the end user what woudl work for your application initially.
That said, whenever I encounter an application that tries to get around the saved window positions that my wm tries to 'enforce', I will start looking for an alternative. I have good reason to size and position windows in a certain way and have the window manager restore them in that way, and I find applications that try to get around that extremely annoying.
When Windows was relatively new, many applications tried to 'force' their own window sizing and positioning on the user, often by creating a screen sized work area and keepign all their windows in there.
Some applications that did this..
Excel
Lotus 123
Word
WP
You will notice when trying any of those applications in modern versions, that they stopped trying this, and rather let the gui decidde.
When you look at X based applications, the same story applies (OpenOffice just for one example)
There is a good reason for this, it has been shown again and again and again that users find this behavior extremely annoying and disturbing for doing their work. You really believe you know better then this?
> If a window placement is impractical then I have no problem with the window manager repositioning it. My problem is when it moves a window to an absurd position when there is no logical reason to do so.
Your problem is a buggy window manager then. Provided that the Window manager does placement properly, the problem you describve does not exist. Hence, I do not see why this is a good argument for your case, it is however a good argument for saying that there are buggy window managers that do not handle this properly.
> So because I have a negative opinion about some aspects of some window systems, that somehow relates to me not understanding them? I understand them, but that doesn't change the fact their not perfect.
Your post indeed suggests you do not understand the purpose of a general purpose windowing system.
General purpose windowing systems have limitations and one of them is the one you encountered. All I said is that if you cannot live with that limitation, you should use an alternative that does not have this limitation because that limitation is there for a very good reason. When developing for a general purpose system that is shared by multiple applications, it is simply a very bad idea to act as if the rest of those applications do not exist or are irrelevant. I'd really suggest leaving such decisions to the user or administrator of such a machine.
It is not like alternatives do not exist, but they have their own limitations. You can have a very good reason for wanting full control over window placement and such, and I am not trying to say that there are no valid situations where this can happen. I am however sayign that a general purpose windowing system is not the solution in such situations.
if you want control over window placement like that, you either define a workspace for your windows to recide in, or you just rethink your idea.
1. Your application has no fucking clue abotu how the user wants their windows displayed
2. Your application has as little clue about what the rest of the display is used for.
The window manager however has a bit of a clue about both, so it IS the proper place for deciding on window placement. All your application should ever try to do is give a suggestion.
Sorry to say, but if you do not udnerstand this then imo you have not understood what a windowsing system is for.
In short, when you develop for a shared gui environment (ie, the gui is also used for other things then your application) you do NOT have control over window placement, deal with it or write your own dedicated gui, it is the nature of the beast.
Did you ever consider that OOo might in fact have features that simply cannot be saved in MS word format? This does not mean at all that you cannot make MS word format documents, it just means that it has the same limitations as for exampel Office 2000 when tryign to save a MS word 6 document. It simply cannot save things in that format when the features needed are not supported, but it can create readable MS word 6 documents pretty well.
Yeah.. having a small builtin screen is what most current home entertainment systems are lacking. I don't want to turn on by big tv screen just for selecting a bunch of audio tracks.
> Any PDA possibilies?
Never tried it, but there seem to be c64 emulators for PPC handhelds at least, and when you have some Linux based handheld, there should be little in the way fo compiling vice for it to get a full c64 emulator.
PalmOS? not that I know.. on the other hand, quite a few c64 games exist on PalmOS natively (I'm sorof addicted to the spy hunter version for it at the moment)
> Sid Emulation :( I want the chip. Damn Sidstation for buying all the chips. Can anyone refer me to a review of how good the emulation is?
I can't... but I have yet to hear a SID emulation that is better then tollerable for gaming, and I would be really surprised if this one is any better.
Luckily I have 5 working ones still.
> What was the cooling problem, was that with the controler, power supply, or the drive? IIRC you could replace the drives with the same bloody thing the PC uses. Not sure how easy it would be to replace the power supply.
The problem was more that a 1541 is an almost complete computer in its own right. It has a cpu (6502), ram (4k) and some i/o ports to control the drive (which is not the same as a pc 5.25" drive either). So no, replacign the drive and/or controller by a PC one wont work.
The heating problem is the simple result of lots of electronics in a too small space without proper cooling.
> One of the neat things I found out from the entry was that the electrical interface for the video on C64 that exists in RCA component form is basically the same as S-Video
Yes, and as a nice side effect, displays intended for those machiens often amke for very good s-video monitors also.
Hmm.. sticking an itx based system is a SX64 case is a neat idea btw.. maybe I should take a peek at that for my home entertainment system.
Lets see... quick peek on kazaa, edonkey and the like turns up about ever tv show I'd like to watch.. quuick roaming of usenet turns up newsgroups with the most recent episodes of almost any series you might be interested in..
Now tell me, how is this anywhere new?
If the TV broadcasters don't like it, they shoudl cosnider a few things first.
- Many TV programs I am interested in are not broadcasted on any channel I can receive here.
- Those that are broadcasted here are often showed at impossible times.
Fix those 2 issues (the later is very simple, just actively support time shifting instead of trying to oppose it, and the issue is gone) and people have very little reason to pirate TV content.
Hmm... hyperthreading was more a case of 'how the fuck are we going to keep all those execution units busy'.
If Intel had added a 2nd fpu it woudl at least make for a poor-mans dual core.
> I'm taking a big gamble here, and hoping you're just not trolling for a cheap argument...
I can't talk for the grantparent of course, but the questions put up there are ones that occur to many outside observers with regards to the USA, so I doubt grantparent was trolling. Thanks for your view on this btw. It helps to at least understand what is happening.
> Why should that company that invested all the time and resources into laying those lines just roll over and let somebody else piggy back off of their investment? It is not a matter of monopoly but a matter of a high cost and high risk investment sane business people are not willing to make. Unless you are willing to pay for extra lines and enjoy the sight of them you might want to check your facts and shat up till then.
Verizon invested a lot in cables, and have been overtaken by technology. Too fucking bad for them, that is the risk of doing business, they should have kep thteir eyes open and offer what their customers wanted.
When the government jumps in to bar competition to a company while that company simply failed to adapt, that government helps in the creation of a monopoly and a bad one for that.
You are an idiot, not even worth the air you breathe.
> No, the latest version for EVERYONE is IE6 SP2. If they're still using an older OS, that's tough shit for them.
Except for those that need Windows 2000 for other software they NEED for running their business, and those that need software that is incompatible with SP2 and and..
> You can't say "Well the latest version of Windows is XP, but some people decided not to upgrade so the latest version for them is 2000." It just makes no sense.
Microsoft supports Windows 2000, people pay for that support, why the fuck should they have to pay yet again to get an incomaptible OS?
You are not makign a well thought out argument there, not to say you are being stupid.
And I know people with XP home who still have similar problems pretty regularely.
Also, it was not a problem during transition, but as a result of installing a zillion applicatiosn that need dlls with the same name (but different code)
THis still happens today and is in no way fixed by the Windows installer.
> So we've got a low standard, and it's dropping fast.
Ok, thats more clear. Now, we seem to disagree over if this is a good thing of course.
Well, people do.. and the system has also been known for needing a reinstall every so often... guess why.
> The problem of smaller publishers generally is not that their works are pirated, but that they can't generate enough interest in them at all.
Quite true, and I don't think I ever claimed piracy to be the primary or even a very relevant problem for them. All I said is that criminalizing non comemrcial copying favors them more then big publishers (and I don't think piracy is a big issue for big publishers either for that matter)
> Which a) would change under this bill,
Yes, which I said I consider a good thing.
> and b) is irrelevant since what constitutes a commercial basis is amazingly more than you'd think. You need to read the law!
> Actually P2P filesharing is easily prosecuted under the current laws, and would be even more easily prosecuted under the proposed law. It generally is commercial, the way that term is specifically defined in the law.
You realize you are contradicting yourself here?
Either the standard is very high and it is difficult to impossibel to have P2P sharing covered by it, or it is not very difficult. It cannnot be both at the same time.
> This really only goes to show that you haven't read through the law carefully and that you don't have a good understanding of the issues.
No, it shows 2 things:
1. you haven't thought about what I am saying
2. you consider anyone who disagrees with your view as not knowign the issues.
Please read more carefully and think about what is being said before replying.
> First, whether or not a criminal action is brought is entirely up to the DoJ. They don't bother with small cases. They go after large scale piracy operations, which are pretty inevitably dealing with works whose copyrights are held by the big copyright interests.
This has all to do with the scale of infringement and not the scale of the publisher. That is also the right way to set priorities.
Currently a small independent publisher basicly has no option of going after non comemrcial copyright infringement, regardless of the scale at which it happens. Large publishers do have the means to go after that.
That situation is changed, and that works in the advantage of the small publisher.
Also, currently the DoH can't go after individuals sharing files on a non comemrcial basis and obviously they don't bother trying either.
> Second, there have been criminal penalties on the books for over a century. So if it were going to have a positive impact, it would've already done so, one would imagine.
Those come into play when dealing with commercial copyright infringement, which is a different thign then filesharing on p2p networks. Different situation and not much related to this.
> In a couple of years we'll get sued for singing a song in the shower or re-enacting a movie scene without paying royalties.
If you'd do either in a public place you can already be fined for it (and dependign on where you live, the showering in public might get you another fine)
The interesting thing is that criminalizing copyright violations in the end favors the 'little' guy a lot more then the big music and movie producers. It gives a level of protection to the idnependent publisher that they simply cannot afford right now.
Also, currently copyright is mostly enforced by big corporations bullying individuals with civil suits. Imho that is not a proper way to enforce a law.
The problem I see is not how copyright is enforced, but what is covered by copyright and for how long.
Current copyright law does not encourage production of art, rather, it stimulates the creation and hording of comemrcial works regardless of artistic content, thereby failing in its purpose.
I'd be all for criminalizing copyright infringement given that copyright is limited to somewhere below 25 years with a one time extention to maybe 40 years.
> Wont work out in practice of course, but at least at that point, it WOULD be the alcohol and
not the impurities..
Yep. that in many cases a hangover results from methanol does not mean you wont get one from ethanol.
In both cases it is control over the means of production, being it food, programming methods, broadcasting rights or otherwise, so indeed there is little difference there (there are other differences, ie, feodalism having to do with how a country is governed while capitalism is an economic system)