The article author provides a download of the documents he used, and invites everybody to download it and try it out. You are referring to private data that you claim show the opposite. I know who I'm more inclined to belive.
But I'll admit to beeing too lazy to actually find out for myself.
Not so. It's pretty easy to notice when one doesn't correspond to the other. Just try using a GTK or QT application with a strange theme. QT apps will almost always look right, in my limited experience, while the last time I tried, GTK still got a few things wrong. MFC as also a set of wrapper classes arounf the low-level Windows Widgetset.
Is that really an issue? Usually implementing an ABI isn't that much harder than implementing an API. But I don't know, maybe the Gimp for Windows developers had to cheat and add all sorts of hacks to the gimp sourcecode to make it work on Windows...
There is no Windows box that lets you run IE5 and IE6 side by side, and this is actually a rather practical thing to do if you're a developer.
Sure there is. When I was doing web development a few years ago, we has a 'wayback machine' that had Win95, Win98 and WinME and various versions of IE from 3.0 upward, all using VMware. Granted, this seems less resource intensive and easier to set up, but it has been _possible_ to do this for a long time.
You are ignoring the fact that there are pretty high quality wrappers in the other direction. Both QT and GTK apps run just fine under Windows. GTK programs have weird, ugly open/save dialogs, and a few GTK widgets don't actually rely on the native widget, but overall they work much _better_ than Windows programs work in Wine.
Since I mentioned the GTK toolkit something like four times in my original post, it should be bleeding obvious what toolkit I'd prefer they used. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, though.
You're saying that it is impossible to implement one API as a wrapper around another. That is bogus. There are versions of both QT and GTK that are wrappers around the Windows API. I know that the windows API calls are lower-level than QT, but it is _not_ impossible to make wrappers in that direction either. Quite the opposite, if Wine had been based on GTK, I suspect it would have had less bugs by now, not more.
What I'd like to see in Wine is a version that uses GTK for painting, so that Wine apps would integrate nicely with GTK apps. Right now, Wine apps look like something the cat dragged in. As I understand it, work is underway to implement Windows themeing, but that is not what I's like to see, since it still wouldn't make Wine apps look like other X apps. Oh well. Maybe someone will implement a Windows theme that uses GTK for performing drawing operations, that should at least improve the situation a bit.
Nothing new. Go back and read a few older Ars articles, like the ones about the PS2, or the POWER architecture. Ars always produces very high quality writing, but they obviously write about things they think are really cool, hence they often give an over-positive spin on things.
I don't know if the idea to treat the object as the fundamental concept instead of the bitstream is good or bad. The drawbacks of each design is known, but since no one has tried constructing a shell that uses objects as the fundamental concept before, it is still unknown how well this works.
I must note, though, that not all shellscript filters treat the stream of bytes as strings. There are commandline image manipulation libraries based on piping image data through filters, for example.
True. But on the other hand it is much harder to write simple general purpose filters for generic objects than for text data. There are quite a lot of general purpose tools in Unix, like grep, sed, tail, etc. that can operate on almost any form of data, whereas MSH tools need to operate on objects, which is quite a bit harder. The potential for ultimate coolness is there, but if the implementation is lacking, MSH will be useless.
I agree. Sure a good syntax is vital for a shell, but it seems to me they have completely forgotten that a shell needs a good UI as well. I would have expected them to implement things like command-specific tab-completions, syntax highlighting, clipboard intergration, etc., but I guess MSH is really only meant for scripting, not interactive use.
Shameless plug: If you're running Unix, you can try out fish, a shell which features all the above UI niceties as well as a cleaned up shell syntax.
Linus was never Tannenbaums student. They met online in a classic flamewar where Tannenbaum delivered such classic comments as 'If you where my student, you wouldn't get a very high grade'. But Linux was born out of gripes Linus had with Minix.
1) Price has not been this low for desktop computers either.
2) Desktop sales aren't decreasing. As someone pointed out, poeple aren't buying laptops instead of desktops, they are buying them as a complement to desktops.
Yeah yeah, mobility will kill desktop PCs, it's been around the corner fro what? Half a decade? As soon as the next generation of shiny CDMA connections or mobile phones or ultralight laptops or desktop replacement laptops or mobile phones or Starbucks comfy chars launch, the desktop PC will be nothing but a memory. There are some things that never change:
Broadband over powerlines is just around the corner
Had that happened someone else would have made very similar discoveries. Consider Newton. He invented calculus, arguably an even bigger breakthrough than anything Einstein did, but Leibnitz got the same idea, and published his results before Newton.
Had Einstein been hit by a bus, modern physics would probably have been delayed by a decade or two, but I'm pretty sure we would have something very much like the theory of relativity today anyway.
Google provides you with functinmality to search verious oparts of the internet. Google didn't create the internet. Those bastards, let's sue them so they and force them to only provide search functionality for www.google.com!!!
Re:"The Macintosh was not the first personal compu
on
The Future of the iPod
·
· Score: 1
I ignored the Apple 2, the Lisa, the Newton and several of Apples more ground braking projects simply because these are not Apples most successful projects.
While the Apple 2 was by no means a failure, it was hardly a huge cash cow either.
You are right, the Mac GUI was in many ways not a revolution, since that was the way the market was headed. But I'd have to disagree with you that their sucess with the MAc stem from beeing early to the market. I think that a much larger part comes from the complete, well designed solution the Mac provided. Much like recent day Apple products like the iPod are.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but there was no Nethack in 1968. I think I like things better today.
My girlfriend tells lies and often forces me to go to bed without sex. Such behaviour in a computer would be called buggy.
The article author provides a download of the documents he used, and invites everybody to download it and try it out. You are referring to private data that you claim show the opposite. I know who I'm more inclined to belive.
But I'll admit to beeing too lazy to actually find out for myself.
Not so. It's pretty easy to notice when one doesn't correspond to the other. Just try using a GTK or QT application with a strange theme. QT apps will almost always look right, in my limited experience, while the last time I tried, GTK still got a few things wrong. MFC as also a set of wrapper classes arounf the low-level Windows Widgetset.
Is that really an issue? Usually implementing an ABI isn't that much harder than implementing an API. But I don't know, maybe the Gimp for Windows developers had to cheat and add all sorts of hacks to the gimp sourcecode to make it work on Windows...
You are ignoring the fact that there are pretty high quality wrappers in the other direction. Both QT and GTK apps run just fine under Windows. GTK programs have weird, ugly open/save dialogs, and a few GTK widgets don't actually rely on the native widget, but overall they work much _better_ than Windows programs work in Wine.
Since I mentioned the GTK toolkit something like four times in my original post, it should be bleeding obvious what toolkit I'd prefer they used. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, though.
You're saying that it is impossible to implement one API as a wrapper around another. That is bogus. There are versions of both QT and GTK that are wrappers around the Windows API. I know that the windows API calls are lower-level than QT, but it is _not_ impossible to make wrappers in that direction either. Quite the opposite, if Wine had been based on GTK, I suspect it would have had less bugs by now, not more.
What I'd like to see in Wine is a version that uses GTK for painting, so that Wine apps would integrate nicely with GTK apps. Right now, Wine apps look like something the cat dragged in. As I understand it, work is underway to implement Windows themeing, but that is not what I's like to see, since it still wouldn't make Wine apps look like other X apps. Oh well. Maybe someone will implement a Windows theme that uses GTK for performing drawing operations, that should at least improve the situation a bit.
Nothing new. Go back and read a few older Ars articles, like the ones about the PS2, or the POWER architecture. Ars always produces very high quality writing, but they obviously write about things they think are really cool, hence they often give an over-positive spin on things.
I don't know if the idea to treat the object as the fundamental concept instead of the bitstream is good or bad. The drawbacks of each design is known, but since no one has tried constructing a shell that uses objects as the fundamental concept before, it is still unknown how well this works.
I must note, though, that not all shellscript filters treat the stream of bytes as strings. There are commandline image manipulation libraries based on piping image data through filters, for example.
True. But on the other hand it is much harder to write simple general purpose filters for generic objects than for text data. There are quite a lot of general purpose tools in Unix, like grep, sed, tail, etc. that can operate on almost any form of data, whereas MSH tools need to operate on objects, which is quite a bit harder. The potential for ultimate coolness is there, but if the implementation is lacking, MSH will be useless.
I agree. Sure a good syntax is vital for a shell, but it seems to me they have completely forgotten that a shell needs a good UI as well. I would have expected them to implement things like command-specific tab-completions, syntax highlighting, clipboard intergration, etc., but I guess MSH is really only meant for scripting, not interactive use. Shameless plug: If you're running Unix, you can try out fish, a shell which features all the above UI niceties as well as a cleaned up shell syntax.
Linus was never Tannenbaums student. They met online in a classic flamewar where Tannenbaum delivered such classic comments as 'If you where my student, you wouldn't get a very high grade'. But Linux was born out of gripes Linus had with Minix.
1) Price has not been this low for desktop computers either.
2) Desktop sales aren't decreasing. As someone pointed out, poeple aren't buying laptops instead of desktops, they are buying them as a complement to desktops.
I am not a linguist, but I think he may have meant 'loser'.
Had that happened someone else would have made very similar discoveries. Consider Newton. He invented calculus, arguably an even bigger breakthrough than anything Einstein did, but Leibnitz got the same idea, and published his results before Newton.
Had Einstein been hit by a bus, modern physics would probably have been delayed by a decade or two, but I'm pretty sure we would have something very much like the theory of relativity today anyway.
In communist Sweden, the swedish RIAA counterpart (STIM) gets a share of the revenue streams for all storage meda such as DVD-R and HDDs.
Here is my definition: Anything bigger than Rosanne Barr that isn't on fire is a planet.
So is the new SP screen brighter than the PSP screen?
Google provides you with functinmality to search verious oparts of the internet. Google didn't create the internet. Those bastards, let's sue them so they and force them to only provide search functionality for www.google.com!!!
I ignored the Apple 2, the Lisa, the Newton and several of Apples more ground braking projects simply because these are not Apples most successful projects.
While the Apple 2 was by no means a failure, it was hardly a huge cash cow either.
You are right, the Mac GUI was in many ways not a revolution, since that was the way the market was headed. But I'd have to disagree with you that their sucess with the MAc stem from beeing early to the market. I think that a much larger part comes from the complete, well designed solution the Mac provided. Much like recent day Apple products like the iPod are.