My advice has been the same from the 1995-ish days of RH... you need a solid foundation that is close to static and stable to build on. Just like the kernel, there cannot just be chaos. Linux needs to be not just the kernel but the basic framework and a single set of core apps. Instead of 15 terminal apps, window managers, editors, etc. There needs to be one, and the very best/stable/simple one from each category. This would get people interested in working on that one project since it would bring the most fame and notice, it would make the base system close to a standard, and it would eliminate a lot of complexity. From there people can be free to add whatever they want in any of those categories or specialized apps but the foundational base would still be standard. That alone would be huge.
After that my opinion is that there should be self-contained applications. All the files and dependencies should be in the apps package and directory. With disk being cheap and huge the redundancy and extra space would be completely worth it to give up. It would make the dependency hell go away and it would simplify so many aspects.
After 17 years though, I'm not holding my breath... the usual crew will just continue to say how it isn't necessary and go about their business with no regard for reality.
This looks like Windows 3.11 with extra stuff inside the windows. Terrible. I honestly have no idea anymore if MS has any sort of plan or vision, it just seems like they have lost the plot. I can't see migrating my users to even just the upcoming Office version with the overly drastic UI changes that make support a nightmare, Windows 8 manages to take those same concerns and make them even worse. Companies have been so consistently resistant to upgrade with each successive release of the OS with many still on XP SP3 because of training and compatibility issues, instead of every trying to simplify and streamline the entire ecosystem they just keep reinventing the wheel... but functionally worse each time.
It is so simple for them to not just maintain but assert their dominance again. Create a new OS for the simplified current uses of PCs, create a server OS that is ridiculously simple and streamlined to manage them. Drop all the million esoteric control panels, snap ins, one-off apps, etc. Instead they are going in the opposite direction everywhere but the UI, which ultimately doesn't matter that much.
I found this which shows the options on a Sony LCD:
1. Interpolate between 1 and 6 (motion smoothing) 2. Repeat frame 1 4 more times with no processing (which is what I prefer as it looks the most natural to my eyes) 3. Insert a blank/dark frame between 1 and 6 (closest to projection, but seems a little weird to me). 4. Repeat frame 1 four times with diminished brightness.
I'm assuming the author (and myself even if he were not) was talking about 5:5 pulldown, not interpolation which is what you and the person above were saying. 5:5 pulldown is most certainly real and applies to LCDs.
My comparison was made because the end result of both high fps video/playback and the higher Hz TV playback are almost identical in look and overall feel. The unnatural nature of it is common to both, that was all I was saying there. I think your search engine-ing failed you though, refresh rate is what we are talking about with the 120/240Hz and it is as I stated, frames being simply repeated 5/10 times respectively. Here is a link: http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisionbasics/qt/framevsrefresh.htm
Sucks to be an ignorant person. There is no interpolation, the frames are simply shown multiple times instead of once with 120/240Hz. I never said I was against more immersive or realistic experiences, in fact, just the opposite. The problem is that faster panning is not done, and other adjustments are not made which does not result in a more realistic or immersive experience but a technically advanced presentation of the same thing, which doesn't result in much of anything... which is why people were and are not impressed. I don't doubt things will eventually get dialed in and then I'll be all for it, but higher fps shooting has been done in the past and is being done now and with no other real adjustments so no advancement has been made. I am not "whining" and I'm not interested in arguing with aggressive asshats online either.
Actually the way I understand it all that it actually does is play each frame 5 times to reach the 120Hz, no tweening or anything of the sort. I have seen video shot and played back on proper equipment at 48fps and it has basically the same exact look. I believe it has to do with the fact that lighting and set design as well as the panning speeds, etc. all are holdovers from traditional 24/30fps and things are more noticeably "fake" because of it when you see it in full detail and the higher fps. That is just a guess based on my experience, I could be wrong and there could be a technical answer for it but it without a doubt feels and looks "wrong" especially in scenes without even motion just talking the speech is most certainly not the way it looks/sounds in real life.
I think people try to justify this as some leap forward or needed improvement but I'm as techy as it gets and I don't see it like that. If you hit me with some high fps video that looks natural and enhances my experience I'm 100% for it but that is not what I've seen so far and it does not seem like this has achieved that either from the responses.
I have tried time after time to get used to it but I can't. The overly smooth look pulls me out of what I'm watching and makes it look fake, to the point that it doesn't seem natural. There is something off about it but I don't know what it is, real life doesn't have that look so I think there is some other factor at play here that makes people (myself included) react this way.
I've created and run a number of global networks and 300ms would be high if your ISP was half-way around the world from you. Unless they were based in a country with bad infrastructure like rural Vietnam (even then we averaged 200-280ms from the US). I find anything over 30-40ms to my ISP to be a bit lame since it is more than reasonable. I'd say depending on the type of connectivity that a threshold of 80ms is fair. 100ms is on the upper side of ridiculous if this is the average latency.
There are a lot of factors though, it could be some QOS or packet shaping/inspection that is the cause of high latency, it could be poorly configured gear at one or more hops, it could be a myriad of things. Personally, I would not accept anywhere near 300ms as my average latency.
Again, I get that but this project began in 1998. That's 14 years. I was using Red Hat pre 1.0 at the time I checked this project out initially. I admire your optimism, but I don't see it happening.
If you really try you can come up with tons, but at the end of the day this is alpha software (and has been for quite a while, and will continue to) it is not viable for much of anything and is more a proof of concept than anything and by the time it is (if) beta or even ready to be stable/released it is going to be even less so. I like hacks for hacks sake and I have been a part of many, I'm just saying that this is a lot of effort and work for essentially nothing. If you are eagerly waiting with baited breath for a FOSS Windows 98, then there aren't many seated with you.
I've been involved in Linux since Red Hat was pre 1.0, I have worked on numerous projects and volunteered time for things like the OLPC project... so sorry AC, but save it. There are projects that looking back I had wasted a lot of time and effort on that were "just because" type things, as I now get older I look back and realize the folly of youth and wish I had maybe spent that time on something more productive or valuable. They are free to do what they want, but I doubt this will ever be more than Alpha/Beta stuff and really not worth the effort.
I get that, and I'm sure they did gain some valuable insight and learned a lot but the end result is a bit useless. Not that it could not become useful or have value in some cases, but if this really is truly all new code then it is a waste in that they could have put that effort into an OS or improving an OS instead of still being in alpha of a 14 year old OS. Different strokes and all that but lives are short and I've wasted time on failed projects that now that I'm older I wish I had not.
You are just being ridiculous. Sorry, I'm not playing along. You know damn well what I am saying, 1-2 generations back especially when they share a common format or even like the PS Vita that allows the UMD Passport only in some regions and not the US... that is all pure bullshit and greed and waste in the gaming field. Feel free to believe what you want, but I've worked 1st hand in this area and the motives are always greed and fear, not technical.
I can't help but think a number of talented people have wasted quite a lot of life on a project that is pretty much without value. Sometime the bazaar just really does produce chaos.
I never said that they don't, but that they should be required to. The reason they do not is because they feel it promotes the used market and that people will not buy new versions if they can keep playing their old games. Of course that is B.S. and what it does do is keep older less efficient consoles in operation or a waste of the user throwing everything away since it usually has little value. The Wii is probably the standout in this area.
It is ridiculous that they are not and the waste involved in the industry. It is nice that most consoles live a 5-7 year lifespan but there is very little reason that they could not be designed for some modularity and allow for them to be upgraded. Basically at this point it is a MB/CPU and GPU upgrade. I'd be OK if it was even the same price as a new system just to reduce the ewaste. Also, it is ridiculous that consoles are not required to offer backwards compatibility at least through emulation. I used to work in the gaming industry and it is all such a waste and most for no reason at all aside from greed.
Yes. We believe in a fairy tale that statistically will effect a small percentage of us instead of a logical and pragmatic system that applies to each and every one of us 100% and for our entire life. Brilliant! Some might call it optimism, I'd call it idiocy. Although, it doesn't surprise me since the vast majority also believe an invisible man has direct power over everything from wars to football games... and is always on "their" side.
I love how people will still argue this point. America deserves to suffer unnecessarily because they are so afraid of someone else getting something "for free" that they are completely blind to the fact that they also could and should be receiving the same for how much they currently pay (actually less when taxes and average healthcare costs are factored in). Universal healthcare in the US will never happen and if it does it will be ruined by lobbyists and big pharmacy/healthcare which will ensure it is a failure and then everyone will scream about how they were right and it doesn't work. Mindless.
And if you explain that these system cost *less* than what we currently spend as a country on healthcare everyone ignores it and continues ranting on about entitlement and welfare and other bullshit divisive issues ingrained in their feeble minds.
Who plays these? I can understand aviation buffs and maybe even people that are pursuing a license but I have never understood it aside from that. I've played all manner of them since the old days of CGA monitors and while the graphics have gotten better it still is like mediocre masturbation at best. Taking off and landing are fun but the 1:1 realtime flight in between is kinda silly to me.
Correct, but with the kernel there is a base foundation which is controlled and designed with a vision and oversight. Linux needs to be more than the kernel. The kernel and a core set of utils/apps needs to be the foundation. From there people can still strip it all the way back to the kernel and make whatever niche project they want or load it up with the kitchen sink and go that way too. Without that same care and approach on a stable foundation we will just keep running on this treadmill forever even though cool things will pop up from time to time along the way.
I interviewed with Google once and this was what I came away with as well, great minds and talent but all geared towards the technology and engineering and almost no one on the human and design and interaction side. I have always been the semi-rare techie that has a strong background in technology as well as art and design. They obviously wanted that but in the interviews it was clear they had no idea how to utilize it or to interview about it. That coupled with an offered salary *less* than most fast food jobs made me turn it down. They spun that as the "prestige" of being able to say you work for Google as well as the perks/benefits... I chose to continue to make 3-4x that elsewhere even without the "prestige."
Google has some great ideas but they just don't know how to make them understandable and usable to the average Joe. Wave, Buzz, Plus, etc. I don't think they ever will get it either.
Well those are a bunch of stats... however, it still points out the same core problem. The desktop, which is the focus of this article. OSX is not just NeXTSTEP. OSX has been around for less time than Linux and has made far more strides in actual usability and design. Linux is incredibly successful, I never said it wasn't. Linux is not a success on the desktop and never will be without a solid foundation and vision. The kernel is and has been handled this way, I never understand why people fight it elsewhere when it makes nothing but perfect sense.
Slashdot Mirror
My advice has been the same from the 1995-ish days of RH... you need a solid foundation that is close to static and stable to build on. Just like the kernel, there cannot just be chaos. Linux needs to be not just the kernel but the basic framework and a single set of core apps. Instead of 15 terminal apps, window managers, editors, etc. There needs to be one, and the very best/stable/simple one from each category. This would get people interested in working on that one project since it would bring the most fame and notice, it would make the base system close to a standard, and it would eliminate a lot of complexity. From there people can be free to add whatever they want in any of those categories or specialized apps but the foundational base would still be standard. That alone would be huge.
After that my opinion is that there should be self-contained applications. All the files and dependencies should be in the apps package and directory. With disk being cheap and huge the redundancy and extra space would be completely worth it to give up. It would make the dependency hell go away and it would simplify so many aspects.
After 17 years though, I'm not holding my breath... the usual crew will just continue to say how it isn't necessary and go about their business with no regard for reality.
This looks like Windows 3.11 with extra stuff inside the windows. Terrible. I honestly have no idea anymore if MS has any sort of plan or vision, it just seems like they have lost the plot. I can't see migrating my users to even just the upcoming Office version with the overly drastic UI changes that make support a nightmare, Windows 8 manages to take those same concerns and make them even worse. Companies have been so consistently resistant to upgrade with each successive release of the OS with many still on XP SP3 because of training and compatibility issues, instead of every trying to simplify and streamline the entire ecosystem they just keep reinventing the wheel... but functionally worse each time.
It is so simple for them to not just maintain but assert their dominance again. Create a new OS for the simplified current uses of PCs, create a server OS that is ridiculously simple and streamlined to manage them. Drop all the million esoteric control panels, snap ins, one-off apps, etc. Instead they are going in the opposite direction everywhere but the UI, which ultimately doesn't matter that much.
I found this which shows the options on a Sony LCD:
1. Interpolate between 1 and 6 (motion smoothing)
2. Repeat frame 1 4 more times with no processing (which is what I prefer as it looks the most natural to my eyes)
3. Insert a blank/dark frame between 1 and 6 (closest to projection, but seems a little weird to me).
4. Repeat frame 1 four times with diminished brightness.
I'm assuming the author (and myself even if he were not) was talking about 5:5 pulldown, not interpolation which is what you and the person above were saying. 5:5 pulldown is most certainly real and applies to LCDs.
My comparison was made because the end result of both high fps video/playback and the higher Hz TV playback are almost identical in look and overall feel. The unnatural nature of it is common to both, that was all I was saying there. I think your search engine-ing failed you though, refresh rate is what we are talking about with the 120/240Hz and it is as I stated, frames being simply repeated 5/10 times respectively. Here is a link: http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisionbasics/qt/framevsrefresh.htm
Sucks to be an ignorant person. There is no interpolation, the frames are simply shown multiple times instead of once with 120/240Hz. I never said I was against more immersive or realistic experiences, in fact, just the opposite. The problem is that faster panning is not done, and other adjustments are not made which does not result in a more realistic or immersive experience but a technically advanced presentation of the same thing, which doesn't result in much of anything... which is why people were and are not impressed. I don't doubt things will eventually get dialed in and then I'll be all for it, but higher fps shooting has been done in the past and is being done now and with no other real adjustments so no advancement has been made. I am not "whining" and I'm not interested in arguing with aggressive asshats online either.
Actually the way I understand it all that it actually does is play each frame 5 times to reach the 120Hz, no tweening or anything of the sort. I have seen video shot and played back on proper equipment at 48fps and it has basically the same exact look. I believe it has to do with the fact that lighting and set design as well as the panning speeds, etc. all are holdovers from traditional 24/30fps and things are more noticeably "fake" because of it when you see it in full detail and the higher fps. That is just a guess based on my experience, I could be wrong and there could be a technical answer for it but it without a doubt feels and looks "wrong" especially in scenes without even motion just talking the speech is most certainly not the way it looks/sounds in real life.
I think people try to justify this as some leap forward or needed improvement but I'm as techy as it gets and I don't see it like that. If you hit me with some high fps video that looks natural and enhances my experience I'm 100% for it but that is not what I've seen so far and it does not seem like this has achieved that either from the responses.
I have tried time after time to get used to it but I can't. The overly smooth look pulls me out of what I'm watching and makes it look fake, to the point that it doesn't seem natural. There is something off about it but I don't know what it is, real life doesn't have that look so I think there is some other factor at play here that makes people (myself included) react this way.
I've created and run a number of global networks and 300ms would be high if your ISP was half-way around the world from you. Unless they were based in a country with bad infrastructure like rural Vietnam (even then we averaged 200-280ms from the US). I find anything over 30-40ms to my ISP to be a bit lame since it is more than reasonable. I'd say depending on the type of connectivity that a threshold of 80ms is fair. 100ms is on the upper side of ridiculous if this is the average latency.
There are a lot of factors though, it could be some QOS or packet shaping/inspection that is the cause of high latency, it could be poorly configured gear at one or more hops, it could be a myriad of things. Personally, I would not accept anywhere near 300ms as my average latency.
Again, I get that but this project began in 1998. That's 14 years. I was using Red Hat pre 1.0 at the time I checked this project out initially. I admire your optimism, but I don't see it happening.
If you really try you can come up with tons, but at the end of the day this is alpha software (and has been for quite a while, and will continue to) it is not viable for much of anything and is more a proof of concept than anything and by the time it is (if) beta or even ready to be stable/released it is going to be even less so. I like hacks for hacks sake and I have been a part of many, I'm just saying that this is a lot of effort and work for essentially nothing. If you are eagerly waiting with baited breath for a FOSS Windows 98, then there aren't many seated with you.
I've been involved in Linux since Red Hat was pre 1.0, I have worked on numerous projects and volunteered time for things like the OLPC project... so sorry AC, but save it. There are projects that looking back I had wasted a lot of time and effort on that were "just because" type things, as I now get older I look back and realize the folly of youth and wish I had maybe spent that time on something more productive or valuable. They are free to do what they want, but I doubt this will ever be more than Alpha/Beta stuff and really not worth the effort.
I get that, and I'm sure they did gain some valuable insight and learned a lot but the end result is a bit useless. Not that it could not become useful or have value in some cases, but if this really is truly all new code then it is a waste in that they could have put that effort into an OS or improving an OS instead of still being in alpha of a 14 year old OS. Different strokes and all that but lives are short and I've wasted time on failed projects that now that I'm older I wish I had not.
You are just being ridiculous. Sorry, I'm not playing along. You know damn well what I am saying, 1-2 generations back especially when they share a common format or even like the PS Vita that allows the UMD Passport only in some regions and not the US... that is all pure bullshit and greed and waste in the gaming field. Feel free to believe what you want, but I've worked 1st hand in this area and the motives are always greed and fear, not technical.
I can't help but think a number of talented people have wasted quite a lot of life on a project that is pretty much without value. Sometime the bazaar just really does produce chaos.
Except that they do not own and control the entire ecosystem.
I never said that they don't, but that they should be required to. The reason they do not is because they feel it promotes the used market and that people will not buy new versions if they can keep playing their old games. Of course that is B.S. and what it does do is keep older less efficient consoles in operation or a waste of the user throwing everything away since it usually has little value. The Wii is probably the standout in this area.
It is ridiculous that they are not and the waste involved in the industry. It is nice that most consoles live a 5-7 year lifespan but there is very little reason that they could not be designed for some modularity and allow for them to be upgraded. Basically at this point it is a MB/CPU and GPU upgrade. I'd be OK if it was even the same price as a new system just to reduce the ewaste. Also, it is ridiculous that consoles are not required to offer backwards compatibility at least through emulation. I used to work in the gaming industry and it is all such a waste and most for no reason at all aside from greed.
Yes. We believe in a fairy tale that statistically will effect a small percentage of us instead of a logical and pragmatic system that applies to each and every one of us 100% and for our entire life. Brilliant! Some might call it optimism, I'd call it idiocy. Although, it doesn't surprise me since the vast majority also believe an invisible man has direct power over everything from wars to football games... and is always on "their" side.
I love how people will still argue this point. America deserves to suffer unnecessarily because they are so afraid of someone else getting something "for free" that they are completely blind to the fact that they also could and should be receiving the same for how much they currently pay (actually less when taxes and average healthcare costs are factored in). Universal healthcare in the US will never happen and if it does it will be ruined by lobbyists and big pharmacy/healthcare which will ensure it is a failure and then everyone will scream about how they were right and it doesn't work. Mindless.
And if you explain that these system cost *less* than what we currently spend as a country on healthcare everyone ignores it and continues ranting on about entitlement and welfare and other bullshit divisive issues ingrained in their feeble minds.
Who plays these? I can understand aviation buffs and maybe even people that are pursuing a license but I have never understood it aside from that. I've played all manner of them since the old days of CGA monitors and while the graphics have gotten better it still is like mediocre masturbation at best. Taking off and landing are fun but the 1:1 realtime flight in between is kinda silly to me.
Correct, but with the kernel there is a base foundation which is controlled and designed with a vision and oversight. Linux needs to be more than the kernel. The kernel and a core set of utils/apps needs to be the foundation. From there people can still strip it all the way back to the kernel and make whatever niche project they want or load it up with the kitchen sink and go that way too. Without that same care and approach on a stable foundation we will just keep running on this treadmill forever even though cool things will pop up from time to time along the way.
I interviewed with Google once and this was what I came away with as well, great minds and talent but all geared towards the technology and engineering and almost no one on the human and design and interaction side. I have always been the semi-rare techie that has a strong background in technology as well as art and design. They obviously wanted that but in the interviews it was clear they had no idea how to utilize it or to interview about it. That coupled with an offered salary *less* than most fast food jobs made me turn it down. They spun that as the "prestige" of being able to say you work for Google as well as the perks/benefits... I chose to continue to make 3-4x that elsewhere even without the "prestige."
Google has some great ideas but they just don't know how to make them understandable and usable to the average Joe. Wave, Buzz, Plus, etc. I don't think they ever will get it either.
Well those are a bunch of stats... however, it still points out the same core problem. The desktop, which is the focus of this article. OSX is not just NeXTSTEP. OSX has been around for less time than Linux and has made far more strides in actual usability and design. Linux is incredibly successful, I never said it wasn't. Linux is not a success on the desktop and never will be without a solid foundation and vision. The kernel is and has been handled this way, I never understand why people fight it elsewhere when it makes nothing but perfect sense.