It's the 'chicken-and-egg' problem. Does the media cause people to act wrong, or does people acting wrong demand that the media report their point of view?
I really don't know (and I'm drunk right now, so I wouldn't trust myself anyway...). Any insight out there? -
There is a driver here, which Wacom themselves link to.
As far as I know, their serial versions are supported, but not USB. I haven't actually tried it ('cause I have a USB Graphire), but pressure sensing is supposed to be usable in the Gimp.
If no one ever did anything different... baaaah baaaaah.
1. I hope your computer is more difficult to operate than your toaster. Otherwise, you have one hell of a toaster!;-)
2. I'm certainly not saying that there should be only one desktop environment. But once the user has chosen one, it should be the same in all apps. It just makes life easier.
See my reply above. I was talking about a hypothetic free UNIX implementation. And the "ha!" part was not MS-bashing, but a tribute to the fact that any software above a few lines of code is likely to have a few bugs. -
No, no, no, no! That is not what I meant!! I meant that there is one KERNEL executable. The end-user can't recompile it. And I was wondering whether it was the same for the server and the client versions. I do indeed lack knowledge of the deeper internals of NT - I have mainly coded for the 'consumer' versions (3.1, 9x). When I think windows kernel, I think 'kernel32.exe' - but maybe it is organized differently on NT. In that case, forgive my cluelessness. And anyway, even on win9x, it is separated into kernel, drivers, gdi, user, shell and apps - the shell being explorer or a replacement. I am well aware of this. (And aside: Crashing the GDI on win9x in general has the same effect - from the users point of view, as crashing the kernel. Is this different on NT? Real question, not rhetorical).
COM is in the kernel.
I never claimed it is currently in the kernel of winNT. I was talking about a possible UNIX implementation of it. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.
See, whenever you can't explain why something microsoft makes is fast and works well, you make excuses. Hey, microsoft shoved it in the kernel! microsoft makes secret calls to MakeThisFast** APIs.
Wait a moment. I use windows. I like it. I'm posting from it. I code in it. I openly claim MSVC to be the best IDE. Yes, a lot of the comments in this thread were just ms-bashing, but I did not intend mine as one. I agree with the greater parts of your posts in this thread, they are very insightfull and a refreshing break from the "l1nux r00lz" stuff. I just thought platypus reply to calling Unix a hack was justified.
As for the other myths... I hope that wasn't meant as a reply to the content in MY post. Age of Empires would be nice though... eh nevermind.;-)
Same with KDE. There is *nothing* stopping anyone from using Gnome apps under KDE or any other WM or desktop.
No, there is certainly nothing stopping them. But there would be something bothering them. The differing funktionality and look of the GUIs make the ultra-short learning time inherent to GUIs longer.
Example: I want all my 'Open file...' dialogs to look essentially the same. Why? Well, why should they be different? Ok, if they have differing functionality, but they should only be as different as the application requires. Which means that they should be based on the same template.
Anyway, GNOME and kde are indeed steps in the right direction. What they need to do is make sure they are 100% compatible from the users point of view. Otherwise, the whole concept becomes useless: Two (internally) consistent GUIs combined means one inconsistent GUI.
I think the truth is that Windows was designed for the desktop, and Unix was designed for servers (and cli clients). Pain results when people try to cross the line, that is windows as server, and unix as gui client.
However, I'm not saying that unix can't be good on the desktop. The kernels (Linux, *BSD, solaris etc.) are a strong foundation, and it is certainly very highly possible to build a nice, functional, well-performing GUI on top of a Unix kernel. Some of the low-level graphics work might have to be done in the kernel, but it should be optional! I don't think a GUI belongs on a server. There is nothing wrong with graphical server management (like NT), but the gui should be on a client.
This is win2k's problem - it tries to combine server OS and GUI client, not just in one codebase, but in one executable (correct me if I'm wrong... are the Enterprise Server executables different, or is it just config, like in NT4?).
I have no problem with things like COM (support for it) in the kernel of the client, if it needs to be there to improve performance, and the kernel parts are kept simple enough to be kept bug-free (ha!).
Unix is not a hack, it is a good design. But most current Unix GUIs are Uglyhacks(tm). Windows is not a hack, it is a good design. But using it as a server is an Uglyhack(tm). (Maybe it could work as well, if they used some more BSD code.;-)
dufke
PS. To the guys preparing to flame me for saying Windows is good: Drop it. You will only prove that your mind is as closed as your source is open. DS.
Haha, ok, I missed that. Still, that, in my mind, is a part of the desktop environment. And when I said A desktop environment that can look like a Mac I off course meant look and work like a mac (minus the crashes please).
After all they fixed Mac font rendering...
Pleeeaze pretty please Adobe do the same on linux... and provide some nice (free) fonts to render. (Disclaimer: I haven't tried XF86 4.0 yet, with TrueType support).
Yes, I like this. I really hope Linux gains marketshare in this area. Hell, I even thought about starting a special distribution for media/press/graphics work (but I'm not quite skilled enough to do that:-). I sometimes talk to photographers about their computer choice. The discussion tends to end in something like "ok... keep the Mac.". But, I'm appaled at the state of the software and OS on that platform. It makes my overclocked AMD/VIA Super7 system with broken drivers and win95 seem stable. Linux/*BSD stability would be a godsend for these people.
So what does Linux need for this market? Photoshop. Xpress. A desktop environment that can look like a Mac. The latter we pretty much have. The former two are just a port away, and at least Adobe has shown interest in Linux. Further, I think good versions of PPC linux would be usefull, so people can keep their hardware. Of course, half the purpose of this switch is to let them buy cheap fast x86 hardware...
Of course, there is a kind of Unix coming to the Mac platform. MacOS X. (The desktop version, I know Server is out already.) Aqua sure is purty, but it worries me when the GUI of the OS is more graphics intensive than most computergames...
The magnets in a maglev put out a lot of noise as well, even when the train isn't around.
What do you mean? Electromagnets generating noise? Uh, maybe electromagnetic noise, but I doubt you can hear that with your ears only...
They may hum slightly due to vibrations, but nothing near a fan. The main cause of noise from Maglevs is shockwaves. Anything (ok ok, not spaceships:-) going at 500km/h or more is gonna generate a lot of noise. (Not to mention if it goes faster than sound. Booom.)
And anyway, the track magnets are turned off when the train isn't there.
we have to assume that they are actually designed better.
As far as I know, these are the same K75 core, 0.18 micron die chips.
The difference is probably just in yield. When Kryotech released 1Ghz, there were to few chips capable of running at 1Ghz air-cooled. Now, the proccess has run longer, it is (probably) tuned somewhat, and AMD has had time to save the best chips for a while. Remember, neither Kryotech nor AMD need to sell huge quantities of the top chips... the prices are huge!
Instead, you'll need a device that sits between the chip and mobo
Has it struck anyone else that this needn't be a separate device, but could be a part of the mobo. Overclocker friendly mobo makers (hello ABIT, are you listening?) could include the circuitry in the board, and configure it from the bios... now that's easy overclocking!
First of all, isn't the 'sys' temperature you quote the temp in the case? If so, how can it be higher than the CPU temp... hardly possible as long as you are cooling with the case air and no peltiers. MB sensors are hardly the most accurate thermometers...
My guess is that the increase in temperature caused by the dist.net client is the same increase as any other 100% CPU load software would cause. Modern x86 OS'es (which means Linux, NT etc. but NOT win9x) run a special idle instruction (the name of which I forgot) which powers down parts of the CPU when its idle. This is unlike apm/acpi 'suspend mode' etc. in that it is very fast, and wakeup only takes a few cycles. When the CPU load is 100%, the OS (obviously) has no time to run this instruction, and the CPU is fully powered all of the time.
The point is that the dist.net causes no more thermal stress than any other CPU-heavy app (quake anyone?:-). And I very much hope you cooling is good enough to survive that. (Can you touch the heatsink without pain? Then you are OK.)
It is just a question of definitions. When you talk about the 'operating system' here, you probably mean the kernel. This is the usual UNIX definition. But on other platforms, like Mac and Win32, the GUI is more tightly integrated with the core of the OS, and is therefore usually defined as a part of it.
What you are saying is in essence correct: The kernel should be optimised for the computer, and the GUI for the user (which does NOT mean bloating it - it must be responsive). But Nielsen's statement is also correct, since from his point of view, the OS is the kernel and the GUI, and he works on the GUI half.
Now, all the processors run at very close to the same bus speed
Well... depends on how you mean. Intel is currently selling proc's at 66, 100 and 133 Mhz bus speeds. AMD is selling K6-x at 100Mhz FSB, and the Athlon at 100Mhz, but it transfers on both edges of the clock (aka. 'DDR') effectively making it a 200Mhz bus.
(These buses are comparable directly in Mhz, since to my knowledge, they are all 64 bits wide.)
Yes, there is still a relation. The Front Side Bus speed is multiplied by a fixed number to get the core speed. Thus, for a 1Ghz P3 EB it would be 133Mhz * 7.5 = 997Mhz (heh... false marketing... its 3 Mhz too slow!;-)
Intel's Celerons run 66Mhz FSB. Their cores are not slower than a P2, but the slower memory bus will hamper them in memory-intensive tasks. (Trust me, I have one...)
And there's a stable 1.1GHz Athlon that was shown at CeBIT.
And not just any old Athlon. a 'Thunderbird' (AMD code name) with 256kB full-speed on-die cache.
Where I live (sweden), it is hard enough to get ANY coppermine (P3 'E')... but athlons abound. I'll belive in a 1Ghz P3 when it is marked as 'In stock' at my fave webstore.
One thing I have noticed with the Gimp, is the apparant lack of ICC/ICM color management. I'm afraid this would seriously reduce the usefullness of the software in a proffessional (sp?) setting. To tell you to truth, I have never encountered any kind of color management in Linux (ok, apart from 'gamma' settings).
I wonder how difficult implementing ICM on Linux would be. I have been trying to find out how holds any patents on the subject, but have failed thus far. Anyone know anything about this?
Of course, in the meantime, the encryption scheme will have been broken and/or people will have figured out a way to intercept the music. There's no real need for concern.
Well, won't there? Someone has broken the DVD format, but I still don't have a way to back DVD's up. Why? Because MPAA (or in this case RIAA, same shit...) have much too much control over the hardware makers. Diamond got away with the RIO, but would they have gotten away with a DVD-R which can write the code tracks? Will we ever have such a drive? (Affordable, without 'tax'?)
Corporate power reaching across hardware-content boundaries leads to pain for the consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the 'chicken-and-egg' problem. Does the media cause people to act wrong, or does people acting wrong demand that the media report their point of view?
I really don't know (and I'm drunk right now, so I wouldn't trust myself anyway...). Any insight out there?
-
Well, you can start at the Wacom Tablet HOWTO.
There is a driver here, which Wacom themselves link to.
As far as I know, their serial versions are supported, but not USB. I haven't actually tried it ('cause I have a USB Graphire), but pressure sensing is supposed to be usable in the Gimp.
dufke
-
I'd rather get a keyboard that emphasizes comfort--like the Microsoft Natural Elite
Heh, and a keyboard that makes you confused every time you go back to normal arrow and nav keys. ("wtf? the home button moved again?")
no hot keys around!
Uh... not that the Windows keys are very hot or anything, but I think they technically qualify as 'hot keys'.
-
Aren't there DVD capable macs?
-
If no one ever did anything different... baaaah baaaaah.
;-)
1. I hope your computer is more difficult to operate than your toaster. Otherwise, you have one hell of a toaster!
2. I'm certainly not saying that there should be only one desktop environment. But once the user has chosen one, it should be the same in all apps. It just makes life easier.
dufke
-
Cool fact: The w3c (!) links to this 'version' of deCSS. (Look under 'Other software' at the bottom.)
-
See my reply above. I was talking about a hypothetic free UNIX implementation. And the "ha!" part was not MS-bashing, but a tribute to the fact that any software above a few lines of code is likely to have a few bugs.
-
last comment about NT being one exe
;-)
No, no, no, no! That is not what I meant!! I meant that there is one KERNEL executable. The end-user can't recompile it. And I was wondering whether it was the same for the server and the client versions. I do indeed lack knowledge of the deeper internals of NT - I have mainly coded for the 'consumer' versions (3.1, 9x). When I think windows kernel, I think 'kernel32.exe' - but maybe it is organized differently on NT. In that case, forgive my cluelessness. And anyway, even on win9x, it is separated into kernel, drivers, gdi, user, shell and apps - the shell being explorer or a replacement. I am well aware of this. (And aside: Crashing the GDI on win9x in general has the same effect - from the users point of view, as crashing the kernel. Is this different on NT? Real question, not rhetorical).
COM is in the kernel.
I never claimed it is currently in the kernel of winNT. I was talking about a possible UNIX implementation of it. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.
See, whenever you can't explain why something microsoft makes is fast and works well, you make excuses. Hey, microsoft shoved it in the kernel! microsoft makes secret calls to MakeThisFast** APIs.
Wait a moment. I use windows. I like it. I'm posting from it. I code in it. I openly claim MSVC to be the best IDE. Yes, a lot of the comments in this thread were just ms-bashing, but I did not intend mine as one. I agree with the greater parts of your posts in this thread, they are very insightfull and a refreshing break from the "l1nux r00lz" stuff. I just thought platypus reply to calling Unix a hack was justified.
As for the other myths... I hope that wasn't meant as a reply to the content in MY post. Age of Empires would be nice though... eh nevermind.
dufke
-
Same with KDE. There is *nothing* stopping anyone from using Gnome apps under KDE or any other WM or desktop.
No, there is certainly nothing stopping them. But there would be something bothering them. The differing funktionality and look of the GUIs make the ultra-short learning time inherent to GUIs longer.
Example: I want all my 'Open file...' dialogs to look essentially the same. Why? Well, why should they be different? Ok, if they have differing functionality, but they should only be as different as the application requires. Which means that they should be based on the same template.
Anyway, GNOME and kde are indeed steps in the right direction. What they need to do is make sure they are 100% compatible from the users point of view. Otherwise, the whole concept becomes useless: Two (internally) consistent GUIs combined means one inconsistent GUI.
dufke
-
I think the truth is that Windows was designed for the desktop, and Unix was designed for servers (and cli clients). Pain results when people try to cross the line, that is windows as server, and unix as gui client.
;-)
However, I'm not saying that unix can't be good on the desktop. The kernels (Linux, *BSD, solaris etc.) are a strong foundation, and it is certainly very highly possible to build a nice, functional, well-performing GUI on top of a Unix kernel. Some of the low-level graphics work might have to be done in the kernel, but it should be optional! I don't think a GUI belongs on a server. There is nothing wrong with graphical server management (like NT), but the gui should be on a client.
This is win2k's problem - it tries to combine server OS and GUI client, not just in one codebase, but in one executable (correct me if I'm wrong... are the Enterprise Server executables different, or is it just config, like in NT4?).
I have no problem with things like COM (support for it) in the kernel of the client, if it needs to be there to improve performance, and the kernel parts are kept simple enough to be kept bug-free (ha!).
Unix is not a hack, it is a good design. But most current Unix GUIs are Uglyhacks(tm). Windows is not a hack, it is a good design. But using it as a server is an Uglyhack(tm). (Maybe it could work as well, if they used some more BSD code.
dufke
PS. To the guys preparing to flame me for saying Windows is good: Drop it. You will only prove that your mind is as closed as your source is open. DS.
-
...but because it has working clipboard...
:-)
Haha, ok, I missed that. Still, that, in my mind, is a part of the desktop environment. And when I said A desktop environment that can look like a Mac I off course meant look and work like a mac (minus the crashes please).
After all they fixed Mac font rendering...
Pleeeaze pretty please Adobe do the same on linux... and provide some nice (free) fonts to render. (Disclaimer: I haven't tried XF86 4.0 yet, with TrueType support).
(your sig is cool
-
(RANT)
:-). I sometimes talk to photographers about their computer choice. The discussion tends to end in something like "ok... keep the Mac.". But, I'm appaled at the state of the software and OS on that platform. It makes my overclocked AMD/VIA Super7 system with broken drivers and win95 seem stable. Linux/*BSD stability would be a godsend for these people.
Yes, I like this. I really hope Linux gains marketshare in this area. Hell, I even thought about starting a special distribution for media/press/graphics work (but I'm not quite skilled enough to do that
So what does Linux need for this market? Photoshop. Xpress. A desktop environment that can look like a Mac. The latter we pretty much have. The former two are just a port away, and at least Adobe has shown interest in Linux. Further, I think good versions of PPC linux would be usefull, so people can keep their hardware. Of course, half the purpose of this switch is to let them buy cheap fast x86 hardware...
Of course, there is a kind of Unix coming to the Mac platform. MacOS X. (The desktop version, I know Server is out already.) Aqua sure is purty, but it worries me when the GUI of the OS is more graphics intensive than most computergames...
(/RANT)
dufke
-
(The superconductors have to be cooled somehow.)
Does the german maglev use superconductors? From what I figured, it doesn't use them, at least not in the track. But I'm not sure at all.
-
The magnets in a maglev put out a lot of noise as well, even when the train isn't around.
:-) going at 500km/h or more is gonna generate a lot of noise. (Not to mention if it goes faster than sound. Booom.)
What do you mean? Electromagnets generating noise? Uh, maybe electromagnetic noise, but I doubt you can hear that with your ears only...
They may hum slightly due to vibrations, but nothing near a fan. The main cause of noise from Maglevs is shockwaves. Anything (ok ok, not spaceships
And anyway, the track magnets are turned off when the train isn't there.
-
we have to assume that they are actually designed better.
As far as I know, these are the same K75 core, 0.18 micron die chips.
The difference is probably just in yield. When Kryotech released 1Ghz, there were to few chips capable of running at 1Ghz air-cooled. Now, the proccess has run longer, it is (probably) tuned somewhat, and AMD has had time to save the best chips for a while. Remember, neither Kryotech nor AMD need to sell huge quantities of the top chips... the prices are huge!
dufke
-
Instead, you'll need a device that sits between the chip and mobo
Has it struck anyone else that this needn't be a separate device, but could be a part of the mobo. Overclocker friendly mobo makers (hello ABIT, are you listening?) could include the circuitry in the board, and configure it from the bios... now that's easy overclocking!
dufke
-
First of all, isn't the 'sys' temperature you quote the temp in the case? If so, how can it be higher than the CPU temp... hardly possible as long as you are cooling with the case air and no peltiers. MB sensors are hardly the most accurate thermometers...
:-). And I very much hope you cooling is good enough to survive that. (Can you touch the heatsink without pain? Then you are OK.)
My guess is that the increase in temperature caused by the dist.net client is the same increase as any other 100% CPU load software would cause. Modern x86 OS'es (which means Linux, NT etc. but NOT win9x) run a special idle instruction (the name of which I forgot) which powers down parts of the CPU when its idle. This is unlike apm/acpi 'suspend mode' etc. in that it is very fast, and wakeup only takes a few cycles. When the CPU load is 100%, the OS (obviously) has no time to run this instruction, and the CPU is fully powered all of the time.
The point is that the dist.net causes no more thermal stress than any other CPU-heavy app (quake anyone?
(/rant)
dufke
-
Fool am I... wrong ask slash... SORRY!
-
It is just a question of definitions. When you talk about the 'operating system' here, you probably mean the kernel. This is the usual UNIX definition. But on other platforms, like Mac and Win32, the GUI is more tightly integrated with the core of the OS, and is therefore usually defined as a part of it.
What you are saying is in essence correct: The kernel should be optimised for the computer, and the GUI for the user (which does NOT mean bloating it - it must be responsive). But Nielsen's statement is also correct, since from his point of view, the OS is the kernel and the GUI, and he works on the GUI half.
dufke
-
Now, all the processors run at very close to the same bus speed
Well... depends on how you mean. Intel is currently selling proc's at 66, 100 and 133 Mhz bus speeds. AMD is selling K6-x at 100Mhz FSB, and the Athlon at 100Mhz, but it transfers on both edges of the clock (aka. 'DDR') effectively making it a 200Mhz bus.
(These buses are comparable directly in Mhz, since to my knowledge, they are all 64 bits wide.)
dufke
-
Yes, there is still a relation. The Front Side Bus speed is multiplied by a fixed number to get the core speed. Thus, for a 1Ghz P3 EB it would be 133Mhz * 7.5 = 997Mhz (heh... false marketing... its 3 Mhz too slow! ;-)
Intel's Celerons run 66Mhz FSB. Their cores are not slower than a P2, but the slower memory bus will hamper them in memory-intensive tasks. (Trust me, I have one...)
dufke
-
And there's a stable 1.1GHz Athlon that was shown at CeBIT.
And not just any old Athlon. a 'Thunderbird' (AMD code name) with 256kB full-speed on-die cache.
Where I live (sweden), it is hard enough to get ANY coppermine (P3 'E')... but athlons abound. I'll belive in a 1Ghz P3 when it is marked as 'In stock' at my fave webstore.
dufke
-
One thing I have noticed with the Gimp, is the apparant lack of ICC/ICM color management. I'm afraid this would seriously reduce the usefullness of the software in a proffessional (sp?) setting. To tell you to truth, I have never encountered any kind of color management in Linux (ok, apart from 'gamma' settings).
I wonder how difficult implementing ICM on Linux would be. I have been trying to find out how holds any patents on the subject, but have failed thus far. Anyone know anything about this?
dufke
-
Makes me wonder if the Beanie can be revoked.
As far as I understand, it was the Linux developers, not the Forum, that got the beanie. They'll need (and deserve) it more than ever.
-
Of course, in the meantime, the encryption scheme will have been broken and/or people will have figured out a way to intercept the music. There's no real need for concern.
Well, won't there? Someone has broken the DVD format, but I still don't have a way to back DVD's up. Why? Because MPAA (or in this case RIAA, same shit...) have much too much control over the hardware makers. Diamond got away with the RIO, but would they have gotten away with a DVD-R which can write the code tracks? Will we ever have such a drive? (Affordable, without 'tax'?)
Corporate power reaching across hardware-content boundaries leads to pain for the consumers.
dufke
-