The real world is not CMYK. Your eyes only sense things in RGB. The only time CMYK is relevant is for putting things on dead trees, and there it can easily be converted to. You don't actually have to edit in it on your monitor (Which, like your eyes, is RGB, and that's not a coincidence.)
Render farms are for 3-D models. Photoshop is not a define-the-coordinates, render-the-wireframe-mockup, edit-the-scene kind of editor. It's what the name says, a photographic editor - in 2D. What would it do with a render farm?
Getting more apps to run on Linux (even if through Wine) gives a path to follow to wean a company away from Windows slowly instead of the daunting all-at-once switch that they aren't willing to go for. It's much like the inverse of installing Unix Services for Windows. The purpose of that isn't to help unix - it's give companies using unix a path to leave it slowly.
If Windows as a platform is no longer needed because it's apps can run elsewhere, then companies can start using linux for everything, and THEN native ports become economically feasable after the install base is there.
Whether you call it an emulator is not relevant. What is relevant is that Wine does not require that you install a copy of Windows for it to work, which is the (false) claim that was being countered.
I was curious about that huge pricetag of $699. So, I looked up the price of SCO's own Unix product, UnixWare. (Which took a while because SCO's website, like most sites for expensive products, hides the actual pricetag behind a lot of confusing clicks.) I found that the base system for UnixWare 7.whatever is $719. That's only $20 more than they are asking linux users to spend.
SCO's claim against Linux applies ONLY to the kernel itself, not to any of the userland programs. And even in their own imaginary world where they are correct in their claim, I assume they don't think that every single line of code for the linux kernel was lifted from them. Thus they (apparently) believe that the subset of the linux kernel which was allegedly copied from them is worth $699, and their entire base unix system is only worth $719, meaning all their userland code, and all their kernel code not copied into Linux, is only worth $20, by their own assesment.
Nice to know they value a few lines of linux kernel code as being 35 times more valuable than the remainder of all of UnixWare.
Or, perhaps, they are just making up the numbers for the sake of intimidation. Naaah, I'd have to be cynical to make a statement like that.
To the moderator who called this a troll: It's only a troll if the person who said it doesn't actually believe it and is lying on purpose to get a rise out of people. I was not doing that. The fact that my actual real opinions piss some people off does not mean it's trolling to mention them. If you want to live in a world where everyone has to hide what they think if they know it will be controversial, then get back to me after you grow up.
If you're in a work enviroment, you're there to do work, not to play around with the Latest And Greatest OS.
Yeah? So? Does that mean everyone must standardize on the same OS even when it's not possible to find a single OS that is optimal for everyone's WORK-RELATED uses? If you're 95% of dumbass corporate America, you think the answer is yes, for some reason.
It looks like the coaster is made of bare wood, without any sort of weather seal on it of any kind. It seems to me that unless he paints it or stains it, rotting is going to make it unsafe in a few years.
Reading the article, the guys' title was misleading. It's not the volume he's complaining about. (That's controlled at the listener's end anyway.) It's the fact that the signal isn't being mapped down into a representable range of values in the digital samples. (So, if one sample is a number that ranges from -32767 to +32767, the engineer is trying to record a lot of samples that are in the +40000 or +50000 range onto that and they are getting "cropped off" to the maximum. Thus the part of the wave that was supposed to be at amplitue 40000, and the part that was supposed to be at 45000, and the part that was supposed to be at 34000, all end up getting "mashed" into the same spot and you lose clarity.
It's not about loudness being good or bad. It's about the (alleged) misunderstanding by execs in the recording industry that make them think they are making louder music. In fact they are not. Once you hit the limit of what the digitization can record, any further attempt at loudness doesn't actually work, since loudness is caused by the size of the *change* in value, not the value itself. (A sine wave that wavers between +40 and +60 is exactly the same volume as one that wavers between -10 and +10) by making the waves "top out" they actually make it quieter by truncating the top of the wave off, resulting in a long period of time during which the speaker won't be moving at all. Had they made it "quieter", by reducing the amplitude, they would have actually gotten a louder sound because the speaker would still be *moving* during that time instead of stuck against the stops not moving any air.
So he's not complaining about volume. He's complaining about losing the tops of the waves because the amiplitude has been punched up to the point where they hit the flat top of the representable range. This is not more volume. It's more distortion.
There's one big difference between linux and the rest of them. People follow linux closer. I'm not a linux fan myself, but all-in-all, more people are linux people. And those linux people love linux for what it is. I rather the BSD style licensing.. and beos's kick ass interface.. well.. at least until Aqua came about. But that's my opinion, eh?
And there's one really important thing going on here. Note how you, one who prefers BSD, can still get a lot of benefit from the popularity of Linux. When things like KDE and Gnome are made, they are made for the unix community at large. BSD users and Linux users alike benefit. Same for Samba, apache, and pretty much everything. This is true EVEN though there are strong preferences for one or the other within some people. The same is true of the classic vi verus emacs religious war - in the end people realize these arguments are mostly about opinion and preference, and people don't *have* to all use the same thing. If you edit your source code with emacs, and I edit it with vi the next day, and you edit it with emacs the next day, we're all happy. The file "format" is ascii text. The compiler is a seperate tool, with a STRONG wall between compiler and editor. Thus choice is possible, and the arguments are not that important. The arguments only become important when someone is forced to use software not of their choosing, and in the Unix open source world, that just doesn't happen that often. So you use BSD. I use Linux. We can look at each other, shake hands, and say, "No big deal." We can argue the merits of our choices without real consequence, because in the end we know we can still use what we want and work together with each other.
The same is not true for Microsoft versus everyone else, and this is why I despise them so. They aren't happy trying to compete on relative merits of their software. They want to compete by making sure that so long as a majority prefer their software, that everyone else has to conform to that choice too.
Linux "zealots" didn't start this fight. Microsoft did. They are the ones that want to see Linux destroyed. It is only natural that Linux advocates would start to realize that Microsoft must fall for their system to live, because Microsoft has elimination of linux as their goal. I'd absolutely love to live in a world where you use whatever the fuck you want on your own platform, and it doesn't matter. *Microsoft* won't let me live in that world. When *THEY* stop trying to destroy interoperability, then I'll stop hating them. And yes, they have plenty of dedicated, smart, good people in the ranks - but they aren't the ones making the decisions that matter here.
Their goal might not be to improve their own product. Their goal might be to make sure linux software doesn't work well with their own, with regards to things like web browser/server interactions (in both directions), Samba, Wine, and so on.)
"Hey, the latest version of Samba managed to reverse-engineer how feature foo worked. Better change it slightly again."
Honestly, Microsoft does include much GPL'd software in SFU 3.0, and they do abide by the license.
Also, following Microsoft's lead. MIT's Kerberos now supports SVR entries for KDC's. So never underestimate the power of Redmond to help the Open Source world.
The purpose of those tools is to port unix software to Windows. No, that is not "helping" the Open Source world.
Microsoft favored thick clients purely because they had shitty servers, and so that was the solution that favored them the most. And *NO*, thick clients do not lead to more end-user choice. What bullshit. Thick clients mean the users have no choice but to use the same system their co-workers are using, from the high level apps all the way down to the OS itself. Thin clients mean they ONLY have to use the same software for that one task that is shared over the network. For everything else they use what they feel like. Thin clients means I can use Linux while my coworkers use Macs and Windows, because the client doesn't dictate what we have to have on our desks.
OS X/Darwin is _NOT_ FreeBSD. It is a Mach/BSD hybrid kernel with a FreeBSD userland.
Which is exactly what *any* freeBSD port to a new archetecture is - a freeBSD userland with a newly built kernel for that new archetecture. The only difference here is who built it.
Doesn't alter my argument at all, since I only gave tone as one example, not the be-all-end-all. Regardless of which audio features you are referring to, be they tone or intonation or whatever, limiting what is available for the user's discretion *limits* rather than increases expressability. (And, no, it is not true that tone is the only audio clue English speakers use to express non-literal meanings. Intonation is also used, as is pacing (where to pause, and for how long).)
I'm sick of this shit about how the florida voters were incompetent at voting. It was the people who put the broken mechanisms in place that were incompetent. The system used allows hanging chads to happen *during transit*. It is unfair to assume every card with a hanging chad belonged to an incompetent voter who dropped it into the box in that condition. And the "butterfly" ballots were a problem because the printing process used allowed for some ballots to be printed in such a fashion that the holes to didn't line up correctly with the labels for them. You can't blame the voter for complaining about a confusing ballot when the space to mark your vote occured halfway between names rather than lined up with them.
The system where we are is similar, but it could only determine who voted for whom to within an fuzzy accuracy of about 15 voters. (In other words, the voter who submitted this ballot was one of the voters numbered 1200 through 1215.) This is because there is no guarantee that the ballots get submitted in the exact same order the voter ID's were assigned. When they cross your name off the list and give you the number, you move to a room with about 15 booths in it, go to a booth, mark your ballot, and then take it to the reader and feed it to the machine. Thus if I am a slower voter than the people in line behind me, they'll get to a booth, mark their ballots, and drop them in the scanner before I do. So the voter ID numbers do not correspond exactly to the order the ballots are dropped in the box - but they have a fuzzy range you can assume contains the vote of a paticular voter ID.
Microsoft didn't bring computing to the masses, nor did it hinder it, the HARDWARE platform it was lucky enough to be attached to brought computing to the masses. The openness of the PC hardware made it more affordable than alternatives, and made the hobbiests like it for tinkering, giving the best of both worlds, attracting people BOTH from the 'I want to tinker' camp, and from the 'I want it cheap and don't care about the details' camp. Remember the 80's? The Mac was universally hated by the very same people who today talk about how cool OS/X is for being BSD based. That's because in the '80s the marketplace was driven by people who were willing to learn new software and new languages without even blinking an eye, and so the computer buying decision was driven more by the hardware than the OS that sits on top of it.
Think about when PC's were becoming popular in the '80s with thousands of titles available for Microsoft DOS. The fact that the OS was DOS was largely irrelevant to those packages. They took over the whole machine when they ran and the OS's job was over once the program was running. So people didn't care that DOS was crap. What mattered is that at a time when the hardware wasn't fast enough to make a real OS feel "snappy", DOS could be shoved aside so your program had the whole CPU and memory to itself. It worked because at the time you couldn't spare the memory and time for a "real" OS.
DOS was a success because it was attached to PC's, not because of any features of DOS itself.
But if you don't leave some audio clues *out* of the literal meaning of the language, it is actually less expressive since you can't communicate any 'tone' to what you say. (For example, how do you express "this thing I am saying is sarcastic" or "This thing I am saying makes me happy" in a language where you cannot change the tone of your voice without having it end up being a totally different word?)
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the CMYK model more relevant? Why? What do you lose if you do all your work in RGB and only worry about CMYK when printing the final image?
The real world is not CMYK. Your eyes only sense things in RGB. The only time CMYK is relevant is for putting things on dead trees, and there it can easily be converted to. You don't actually have to edit in it on your monitor (Which, like your eyes, is RGB, and that's not a coincidence.)
Render farms are for 3-D models. Photoshop is not a define-the-coordinates, render-the-wireframe-mockup, edit-the-scene kind of editor. It's what the name says, a photographic editor - in 2D. What would it do with a render farm?
Adobe != Microsoft.
Getting more apps to run on Linux (even if through Wine) gives a path to follow to wean a company away from Windows slowly instead of the daunting all-at-once switch that they aren't willing to go for. It's much like the inverse of installing Unix Services for Windows. The purpose of that isn't to help unix - it's give companies using unix a path to leave it slowly.
If Windows as a platform is no longer needed because it's apps can run elsewhere, then companies can start using linux for everything, and THEN native ports become economically feasable after the install base is there.
Whether you call it an emulator is not relevant. What is relevant is that Wine does not require that you install a copy of Windows for it to work, which is the (false) claim that was being countered.
I was curious about that huge pricetag of $699. So, I looked up the price of SCO's own Unix product, UnixWare. (Which took a while because SCO's website, like most sites for expensive products, hides the actual pricetag behind a lot of confusing clicks.) I found that the base system for UnixWare 7.whatever is $719. That's only $20 more than they are asking linux users to spend.
SCO's claim against Linux applies ONLY to the kernel itself, not to any of the userland programs. And even in their own imaginary world where they are correct in their claim, I assume they don't think that every single line of code for the linux kernel was lifted from them. Thus they (apparently) believe that the subset of the linux kernel which was allegedly copied from them is worth $699, and their entire base unix system is only worth $719, meaning all their userland code, and all their kernel code not copied into Linux, is only worth $20, by their own assesment.
Nice to know they value a few lines of linux kernel code as being 35 times more valuable than the remainder of all of UnixWare.
Or, perhaps, they are just making up the numbers for the sake of intimidation. Naaah, I'd have to be cynical to make a statement like that.
To the moderator who called this a troll: It's only a troll if the person who said it doesn't actually believe it and is lying on purpose to get a rise out of people. I was not doing that. The fact that my actual real opinions piss some people off does not mean it's trolling to mention them. If you want to live in a world where everyone has to hide what they think if they know it will be controversial, then get back to me after you grow up.
If you're in a work enviroment, you're there to do work, not to play around with the Latest And Greatest OS.
Yeah? So? Does that mean everyone must standardize on the same OS even when it's not possible to find a single OS that is optimal for everyone's WORK-RELATED uses? If you're 95% of dumbass corporate America, you think the answer is yes, for some reason.
It looks like the coaster is made of bare wood, without any sort of weather seal on it of any kind. It seems to me that unless he paints it or stains it, rotting is going to make it unsafe in a few years.
This is in oklahoma. I doubt their laws have gotten as stupid in this regard as most of the rest of the country.
Reading the article, the guys' title was misleading. It's not the volume he's complaining about. (That's controlled at the listener's end anyway.) It's the fact that the signal isn't being mapped down into a representable range of values in the digital samples. (So, if one sample is a number that ranges from -32767 to +32767, the engineer is trying to record a lot of samples that are in the +40000 or +50000 range onto that and they are getting "cropped off" to the maximum. Thus the part of the wave that was supposed to be at amplitue 40000, and the part that was supposed to be at 45000, and the part that was supposed to be at 34000, all end up getting "mashed" into the same spot and you lose clarity.
It's not about loudness being good or bad. It's about the (alleged) misunderstanding by execs in the recording industry that make them think they are making louder music. In fact they are not. Once you hit the limit of what the digitization can record, any further attempt at loudness doesn't actually work, since loudness is caused by the size of the *change* in value, not the value itself. (A sine wave that wavers between +40 and +60 is exactly the same volume as one that wavers between -10 and +10) by making the waves "top out" they actually make it quieter by truncating the top of the wave off, resulting in a long period of time during which the speaker won't be moving at all. Had they made it "quieter", by reducing the amplitude, they would have actually gotten a louder sound because the speaker would still be *moving* during that time instead of stuck against the stops not moving any air.
So he's not complaining about volume. He's complaining about losing the tops of the waves because the amiplitude has been punched up to the point where they hit the flat top of the representable range. This is not more volume. It's more distortion.
More volume comes from that knob you turn.
And there's one really important thing going on here. Note how you, one who prefers BSD, can still get a lot of benefit from the popularity of Linux. When things like KDE and Gnome are made, they are made for the unix community at large. BSD users and Linux users alike benefit. Same for Samba, apache, and pretty much everything. This is true EVEN though there are strong preferences for one or the other within some people. The same is true of the classic vi verus emacs religious war - in the end people realize these arguments are mostly about opinion and preference, and people don't *have* to all use the same thing. If you edit your source code with emacs, and I edit it with vi the next day, and you edit it with emacs the next day, we're all happy. The file "format" is ascii text. The compiler is a seperate tool, with a STRONG wall between compiler and editor. Thus choice is possible, and the arguments are not that important. The arguments only become important when someone is forced to use software not of their choosing, and in the Unix open source world, that just doesn't happen that often. So you use BSD. I use Linux. We can look at each other, shake hands, and say, "No big deal." We can argue the merits of our choices without real consequence, because in the end we know we can still use what we want and work together with each other.
The same is not true for Microsoft versus everyone else, and this is why I despise them so. They aren't happy trying to compete on relative merits of their software. They want to compete by making sure that so long as a majority prefer their software, that everyone else has to conform to that choice too.
Linux "zealots" didn't start this fight. Microsoft did. They are the ones that want to see Linux destroyed. It is only natural that Linux advocates would start to realize that Microsoft must fall for their system to live, because Microsoft has elimination of linux as their goal. I'd absolutely love to live in a world where you use whatever the fuck you want on your own platform, and it doesn't matter. *Microsoft* won't let me live in that world. When *THEY* stop trying to destroy interoperability, then I'll stop hating them. And yes, they have plenty of dedicated, smart, good people in the ranks - but they aren't the ones making the decisions that matter here.
Their goal might not be to improve their own product. Their goal might be to make sure linux software doesn't work well with their own, with regards to things like web browser/server interactions (in both directions), Samba, Wine, and so on.)
"Hey, the latest version of Samba managed to reverse-engineer how feature foo worked. Better change it slightly again."
The purpose of those tools is to port unix software to Windows. No, that is not "helping" the Open Source world.
Microsoft favored thick clients purely because they had shitty servers, and so that was the solution that favored them the most. And *NO*, thick clients do not lead to more end-user choice. What bullshit. Thick clients mean the users have no choice but to use the same system their co-workers are using, from the high level apps all the way down to the OS itself. Thin clients mean they ONLY have to use the same software for that one task that is shared over the network. For everything else they use what they feel like. Thin clients means I can use Linux while my coworkers use Macs and Windows, because the client doesn't dictate what we have to have on our desks.
Nothing you said contradicts what I said. The kernel is a teeny tiny part of what makes BSD be BSD. Replace it and you still have BSD.
OS X/Darwin is _NOT_ FreeBSD. It is a Mach/BSD hybrid kernel with a FreeBSD userland.
Which is exactly what *any* freeBSD port to a new archetecture is - a freeBSD userland with a newly built kernel for that new archetecture. The only difference here is who built it.
Doesn't alter my argument at all, since I only gave tone as one example, not the be-all-end-all. Regardless of which audio features you are referring to, be they tone or intonation or whatever, limiting what is available for the user's discretion *limits* rather than increases expressability. (And, no, it is not true that tone is the only audio clue English speakers use to express non-literal meanings. Intonation is also used, as is pacing (where to pause, and for how long).)
I'm sick of this shit about how the florida voters were incompetent at voting. It was the people who put the broken mechanisms in place that were incompetent. The system used allows hanging chads to happen *during transit*. It is unfair to assume every card with a hanging chad belonged to an incompetent voter who dropped it into the box in that condition. And the "butterfly" ballots were a problem because the printing process used allowed for some ballots to be printed in such a fashion that the holes to didn't line up correctly with the labels for them. You can't blame the voter for complaining about a confusing ballot when the space to mark your vote occured halfway between names rather than lined up with them.
The system where we are is similar, but it could only determine who voted for whom to within an fuzzy accuracy of about 15 voters. (In other words, the voter who submitted this ballot was one of the voters numbered 1200 through 1215.) This is because there is no guarantee that the ballots get submitted in the exact same order the voter ID's were assigned. When they cross your name off the list and give you the number, you move to a room with about 15 booths in it, go to a booth, mark your ballot, and then take it to the reader and feed it to the machine. Thus if I am a slower voter than the people in line behind me, they'll get to a booth, mark their ballots, and drop them in the scanner before I do. So the voter ID numbers do not correspond exactly to the order the ballots are dropped in the box - but they have a fuzzy range you can assume contains the vote of a paticular voter ID.
Microsoft didn't bring computing to the masses, nor did it hinder it, the HARDWARE platform it was lucky enough to be attached to brought computing to the masses. The openness of the PC hardware made it more affordable than alternatives, and made the hobbiests like it for tinkering, giving the best of both worlds, attracting people BOTH from the 'I want to tinker' camp, and from the 'I want it cheap and don't care about the details' camp. Remember the 80's? The Mac was universally hated by the very same people who today talk about how cool OS/X is for being BSD based. That's because in the '80s the marketplace was driven by people who were willing to learn new software and new languages without even blinking an eye, and so the computer buying decision was driven more by the hardware than the OS that sits on top of it.
Think about when PC's were becoming popular in the '80s with thousands of titles available for Microsoft DOS. The fact that the OS was DOS was largely irrelevant to those packages. They took over the whole machine when they ran and the OS's job was over once the program was running. So people didn't care that DOS was crap. What mattered is that at a time when the hardware wasn't fast enough to make a real OS feel "snappy", DOS could be shoved aside so your program had the whole CPU and memory to itself. It worked because at the time you couldn't spare the memory and time for a "real" OS.
DOS was a success because it was attached to PC's, not because of any features of DOS itself.
I love FreeBSD though, I'd love to run it on my iMac instead of OS/X.
OS/X *IS* FreeBSD - with lots of other stuff on top.
But if you don't leave some audio clues *out* of the literal meaning of the language, it is actually less expressive since you can't communicate any 'tone' to what you say. (For example, how do you express "this thing I am saying is sarcastic" or "This thing I am saying makes me happy" in a language where you cannot change the tone of your voice without having it end up being a totally different word?)
Uhh. Sorry, no. VERY VERY bad. where is "*j"???
It's at an address pointed to by random trash on the stack where the j variable was allocated.
the line:
*j = 2;
Is going to sometimes segfault, sometimes not segfault, depending on what random trash was on the stack when 'j' was made.