I specifically left the first one out because I ABHOR outlook. I don't think that an e-mail client should come with an Office Suite. And if it does, it should NOT (NOT, NOT!, NOT!!) allow Rich text or HTML. Bad!
The idea behind email is (perhaps was, I'll not debate it with you or anyone else) to send quick messages in the littlest amount of time. What do you gain from extra fonts (possibly platform dependant ones) and frills? Nothing. The message is no more nor less clear than without them.
Adding an address/phonebook to the planner would be nice.
As for the ability to easily connect to the internet, that is complete and utter rubbish. This has absolutly nothing to do with the Office Suite and everything to do with the OS and it's associated programs.
The typical requirements of a typical home/office user.
A word processor with standard features such as the ability to select fonts, a spelling and grammar checker, table generation, minimal ability to embed objects (images, etc.) and a UI to die for (none of this adding of every possible button and tray everywhere nonsense).
A money managment app.
A schedule app. Because being late (or worse: forgetting completely!) is bad.
MAYBE a presentation program. This is something that a corporate user would need more than anyone else.
A simple bitmap editing program. Perhaps a vector drawing program instead (Print quality higher per size/complexity ratio).
The ability to share files and parts of files seamlessly within the app set.
A spreadsheet/database program. (Personally, I would leave this out as I have no use for it, and most people don't either.)
The whole way it was constructed was to let you
think you were walking through a 3d world anyways.
You were not actually walking through the world. You were walking along defined paths with defined restrictions as to what you could do and where you could go.
That's what made it fun. You had to find a way to do such and such to get to somewhere or other.
Not much fun if you just walk over to the goal and win is it?
(I know I'm generalizing and that NO company that made such good games as MYST and RIVEN would do something stupid like that.)
Pixelation is what keeps digicams from being a perfect replacement for film cameras.
You, my fine feathered friend are obviously both a true geek (a compliment!) and not a photographer. While these digital toys are wonderful for the coolness factor, I sincerely doubt that you will be seeing any pro photographers using any of them.
You have two serious misconceptions:
1> You will NEVER be rid of pixelation. (Unless someone finds a way to generate vector images from super-complex life still -- I'm not holding my breath). The whole thing of pixelation is that it is a representation of color and shape made for a grid. You cannot alter this fact.
2> Digital media is not long lasting. How many of you here believe that a CD, hard disk, etc.. will still functio (or even be remotely compatible!) in 100 years. Contrast that to the photos that we have from over 150+ years ago and I think that you'll agree that chemical film is safer and simpler in the long run.
[Disclaimer:: I am an amateur photographer and I do not think that I will ever really feel the need to use a digital camera for anything more than point, shoot, dispose. I am most certainly biased.:) ]
I gave this some more thought. One of the main reasons that we, at this point at least, don't need programs like 3dWM is simply because all of the CONTENT is 2d.
Any applications that you run are built around the paradigm of a 'window' and content inside a 2 dimensional box. While this idea works well for flat screens and flat OS's, this does not apply in any way to a OS(or wm) with that added dimension.
How useful is it to compile a kernel in a window that is floating at some odd off angle in the middle of virual space? Not very helpful at all. Now, imagine a program that is built with the Z in mind: my example is a file manager that has it's branches in all directions. I am POSITIVE that it is more intuitive to a user to think to himself, "I know I put the file over there, in the back to the right," over the tree system that we have now.
There are some things (most things, IMO) that work well in 2d specifically because we are used to writing in 2d. Other things (organization and such) are more suited to oriented positions and such.
The only advantage that you get from having a third dimension (to some extent, we have a z axis.. but not really) would be in adding more desktop space.
Imagine having just one desktop with DEPTH. You want that ETerm that you started up earlier? Reach down to 30% and pull it up. It zooms into view. All the 'icons' on your 'desktop' (which is just the lowest point of the desktop) are actually just windows that appear small from perspective.
You are up here. /..................\ /...-----------......\ /.....Close App........\ /........................\ /..........................\ /..................---.......\ =============================== Desktop \ Far App
(Sorry if this won't render on non-fixed width fonts)
Neat huh?
The only real problem with this is the clutter that occurs in the back ground. My solution to this is that windows in the background are shaded 30-50% darker.
Obviously you are not a Beta tester for Windows Millennium (the next 9x derivative). One of the absolute worst 'enhancements' that this bane of software has brought to our doorstep is the new version of the Windows Media Player.
Things that I HATE about it:
It's a full screen application by default. If I don't want this (and I don't) I can choose to use one of the many (terrible) cludgy skins that come with the app. While I am in skin mode, there is a giant freaking button (about 100*100px)right above the system tray. WTF??
It replaces the CD player. I repeat: THERE IS NO CD PLAYER. I have to load this stupid program if I want to play a CD. Again: WTF??
IT CRASHES UNDER SYSTEM LOAD. Again and Again.
UGLY. Did I mention that the thing is ugly? I mean fugly-ugly. Whomever designed this thing should be shot in the head. Twice.
And many, many more complaints. Just thinking about it irritates me.
Recent legislation (May 16, 2000) has recently been passed and is now actually on the books. This new law is an amendment to the United States Code and it may lead to taxation of IP telephony.
The bill is supposed to not allow the taxation of internet services, but at the last minute due to pressure from the TelCo companies, a new paragraph was added to the end making IP Telephony taxable.
One of the things that really tick me off is that Linux (or is it just EXT2?) doesn't (as far as I know.. only spent one afternoon trying to find information) have any way to resize partitions after you have made them. This is something that I expect from DOS and windows 9x.. not Linux.
The only solutions that I found where commercial ones like Partition Magic. Surely there is a place for a Open source project in this department!
I am no advanced Linux user. I know my way around the system well enough to get by however I do run into problem on an almost regular basis.
Now that I've made some sort of introduction, I would like to ask a simple question of the Linux using community: If exchanging a kernel is such a dang-blasted important task for any Linux user to know how to do, why is it so complicated?
[Don't say that a 'normal' user doesn't need to do a kernel swap, it doesn't lead to any interesting discussion. I did it because I wanted to test the USB stacks with some of the devices that my company develops.]
I compiled from source my first kernel two days ago, and let me tell you: it ain't something that I would recommend any user do. In fact, I royally screwed my system to the point that I had to restore from backup!
The questions presented:
1. Why is swapping the Kernel so complicated? Why not automate this more? 2. Why is the process not better documented? (Don't tell me that it is, because it is not. The HOWTO that comes with the kernel source doesn't mention ANYWHERE that you have to swap in the newly compile System.map file so lilo and your system don't have hissy fits.)
--
I realise that some of what i referenced may be a bit off (that System.map thing in particular). Be gentle.
AMEN to that. While we're at it, what up with that 33/66Mhz pipe to the harddisk; not to mention the HDs themselves.. so slow (relative to the CPU, i mean..)!
Have you seen specs of the PS2 architecture? Man'o'man. I think that I saw it on ArsTechnica.com somewhere. A moderately fast cpu/mem combo, and FAT buses everywhere.
500Mhz is the current speed of the G4. Add 20-30% = 600-650Mhz.
Where the bloody hell do you get 1-1.2GHz?
Check your math before you post.
One other thing before I go, if IBM was the only supplier of chips, you would see a HUGE increase in the price of a G4. Competition is a good thing for prices. Don't knock it.
This, of course, means that Macs will be coming with some faster chips.
Why is it that the PowerPC chips have slowed down the rate at which new, faster chips have been released? I distinctly remember the iMac/G3 starting at ~300Mhz 2 years ago. Why is it that they have only climbed 200Mhz or so?
Perhaps AMD and intel have me brainwashed into thinking that every month new speeds should be coming out..
Also, and smack me if I am wrong here, weren't the 286, 386 and 486 chipsets 16bit?
DOS was 16bit and so was Win3.1. Some under-lying architecture of Win9x is still 16bit today (remnant of the soundsystem from Win3.x. There are many parts that are still 16bit. If I understand correctly, MS recently over-hauled a large part of the audio system in Windows ME.)
I'm not really sure that it's very interesting to see a performance comparison between some 32bit chips and a 64bit chip. I realise that Merced is somewhat backwards compatible with x86 architecture, but lets face it, x86 and 32bit processing are legacy. They are old technologies that will eventually fade.
However, I would very much like to see Merced pit against an Alpha or perhaps a Sparc Chip.
Linux/OSS is about giving people choice! However, if there are so many choices that it chokes a system, what good are they?
I propose that in the future, distributions should all come with some sort of simple default. Why the hell do I need PICO, VI, KEDIT, EMACS.. all on one system? For the love of god, I literally have a new text editor for every day of the week! Why no install just ONE and then give me a 'Customize Install' feature which allows me to install something else if I am a Vi/Emacs bigot. (I'm a Pico bigot, but we won't get into that here.)
The question here is, what is really the best possible combination which will please the most people and piss off the lease?
Do I hear 'large-scale polling'? What, what? Is it just me?
Slashdot Mirror
I have recently tried weening my boss off of powerpoint. Instead, I got him to allow me to use HTML instead.
With HTML, CSS, DHTML and some Javascripting, I was able to do everything (and more!) that PowerPoint could do.
It took a little longer, but it was well worth it.
Rami
--
Actually, I didn't forget these.
I specifically left the first one out because I ABHOR outlook. I don't think that an e-mail client should come with an Office Suite. And if it does, it should NOT (NOT, NOT!, NOT!!) allow Rich text or HTML. Bad!
The idea behind email is (perhaps was, I'll not debate it with you or anyone else) to send quick messages in the littlest amount of time. What do you gain from extra fonts (possibly platform dependant ones) and frills? Nothing. The message is no more nor less clear than without them.
Adding an address/phonebook to the planner would be nice.
As for the ability to easily connect to the internet, that is complete and utter rubbish. This has absolutly nothing to do with the Office Suite and everything to do with the OS and it's associated programs.
Rami
--
The typical requirements of a typical home/office user.
Anything beyond this is frivolous.
Rami
--
Here here!
(Especially bridge. Yich!)
Rami
--
No way man.
::
The Barney one. Hands down. With the Beavis and Butthead one in a close second.
Those were the days.
:: Sigh
Rami
--
You were not actually walking through the world. You were walking along defined paths with defined restrictions as to what you could do and where you could go.
That's what made it fun. You had to find a way to do such and such to get to somewhere or other.
Not much fun if you just walk over to the goal and win is it?
(I know I'm generalizing and that NO company that made such good games as MYST and RIVEN would do something stupid like that.)
Rami
--
You, my fine feathered friend are obviously both a true geek (a compliment!) and not a photographer. While these digital toys are wonderful for the coolness factor, I sincerely doubt that you will be seeing any pro photographers using any of them.
You have two serious misconceptions:
1> You will NEVER be rid of pixelation. (Unless someone finds a way to generate vector images from super-complex life still -- I'm not holding my breath). The whole thing of pixelation is that it is a representation of color and shape made for a grid. You cannot alter this fact.
2> Digital media is not long lasting. How many of you here believe that a CD, hard disk, etc.. will still functio (or even be remotely compatible!) in 100 years. Contrast that to the photos that we have from over 150+ years ago and I think that you'll agree that chemical film is safer and simpler in the long run.
[Disclaimer
Rami James
GUI Dev Guy
--
The thing that makes
I gave this some more thought. One of the main reasons that we, at this point at least, don't need programs like 3dWM is simply because all of the CONTENT is 2d.
Any applications that you run are built around the paradigm of a 'window' and content inside a 2 dimensional box. While this idea works well for flat screens and flat OS's, this does not apply in any way to a OS(or wm) with that added dimension.
How useful is it to compile a kernel in a window that is floating at some odd off angle in the middle of virual space? Not very helpful at all. Now, imagine a program that is built with the Z in mind: my example is a file manager that has it's branches in all directions. I am POSITIVE that it is more intuitive to a user to think to himself, "I know I put the file over there, in the back to the right," over the tree system that we have now.
There are some things (most things, IMO) that work well in 2d specifically because we are used to writing in 2d. Other things (organization and such) are more suited to oriented positions and such.
Rami James
GUI Developer
ALST R&D, IL
--
My personal take on a 3d desktop is such:
/..................\
/...-----------......\
/.....Close App........\
/........................\
/..........................\
The only advantage that you get from having a third dimension (to some extent, we have a z axis.. but not really) would be in adding more desktop space.
Imagine having just one desktop with DEPTH. You want that ETerm that you started up earlier? Reach down to 30% and pull it up. It zooms into view. All the 'icons' on your 'desktop' (which is just the lowest point of the desktop) are actually just windows that appear small from perspective.
You are up here.
/..................---.......\
===============================
Desktop \
Far App
(Sorry if this won't render on non-fixed width fonts)
Neat huh?
The only real problem with this is the clutter that occurs in the back ground. My solution to this is that windows in the background are shaded 30-50% darker.
Rami James
GUI Guy
ALST R&D Center, IL
--
You can.. sort of.
There is a skin that looks and acts like the version 6, but there is that evil giant button in the bottom right-hand corner.
It's really stupid like that.
Rami
--
Things that I HATE about it:
And many, many more complaints. Just thinking about it irritates me.
Rami
--
Recent legislation (May 16, 2000) has recently been passed and is now actually on the books. This new law is an amendment to the United States Code and it may lead to taxation of IP telephony.
Here is the bill with the amendment.
The bill is supposed to not allow the taxation of internet services, but at the last minute due to pressure from the TelCo companies, a new paragraph was added to the end making IP Telephony taxable.
What do you guys think?
For more information:
Internet Rally against HR1291
A Wired.com article about this legislation.
A ZDNet article.
Rami James
Pixel Pusher
--
One of the things that really tick me off is that Linux (or is it just EXT2?) doesn't (as far as I know.. only spent one afternoon trying to find information) have any way to resize partitions after you have made them. This is something that I expect from DOS and windows 9x.. not Linux.
The only solutions that I found where commercial ones like Partition Magic. Surely there is a place for a Open source project in this department!
Rami
--
I get errors that the I'm using the wrong kernel version. I gues what you said may be the source of my anxiety.
Ho hum.
The HOWTO just said that you have to update lilo by running '/sbin/lilo'. I did that.
Didn't work.
Rami
--
I think that it may be that 'make bzlilo' part that screwed me.
D'oh!
Rami
--
I didn't say that I am not an advanced user.. just not an advanced Linux user.
:)
Experienced user.
Doesn't everyone make weekly backups?
Rami
--
Now that I've made some sort of introduction, I would like to ask a simple question of the Linux using community: If exchanging a kernel is such a dang-blasted important task for any Linux user to know how to do, why is it so complicated?
[Don't say that a 'normal' user doesn't need to do a kernel swap, it doesn't lead to any interesting discussion. I did it because I wanted to test the USB stacks with some of the devices that my company develops.]
I compiled from source my first kernel two days ago, and let me tell you: it ain't something that I would recommend any user do. In fact, I royally screwed my system to the point that I had to restore from backup!
The questions presented:
--
I realise that some of what i referenced may be a bit off (that System.map thing in particular). Be gentle.
Rami James
Pixel Pusher
ALST R&D Center, IL
--
AMEN to that. While we're at it, what up with that 33/66Mhz pipe to the harddisk; not to mention the HDs themselves.. so slow (relative to the CPU, i mean..)!
Have you seen specs of the PS2 architecture? Man'o'man. I think that I saw it on ArsTechnica.com somewhere. A moderately fast cpu/mem combo, and FAT buses everywhere.
Nice. Ver Nice.
Rami
--
Wait, let me think for a moment...
500Mhz is the current speed of the G4. Add 20-30% = 600-650Mhz.
Where the bloody hell do you get 1-1.2GHz?
Check your math before you post.
One other thing before I go, if IBM was the only supplier of chips, you would see a HUGE increase in the price of a G4. Competition is a good thing for prices. Don't knock it.
Rami James
--
This, of course, means that Macs will be coming with some faster chips.
Why is it that the PowerPC chips have slowed down the rate at which new, faster chips have been released? I distinctly remember the iMac/G3 starting at ~300Mhz 2 years ago. Why is it that they have only climbed 200Mhz or so?
Perhaps AMD and intel have me brainwashed into thinking that every month new speeds should be coming out..
Rami James
Pixel Pusher
--
Too true, in my hastiness to answer, I forgot.
My head, it is on a platter for you all.
Rami
--
Also, and smack me if I am wrong here, weren't the 286, 386 and 486 chipsets 16bit?
DOS was 16bit and so was Win3.1. Some under-lying architecture of Win9x is still 16bit today (remnant of the soundsystem from Win3.x. There are many parts that are still 16bit. If I understand correctly, MS recently over-hauled a large part of the audio system in Windows ME.)
Rami James
Pixel Pusher
--
I'm not really sure that it's very interesting to see a performance comparison between some 32bit chips and a 64bit chip. I realise that Merced is somewhat backwards compatible with x86 architecture, but lets face it, x86 and 32bit processing are legacy. They are old technologies that will eventually fade.
However, I would very much like to see Merced pit against an Alpha or perhaps a Sparc Chip.
Anyone have any info on that kind of stuff?
Rami James
Pixel Pusher
ALST R&D Center, IL
--
You are both right and wrong here.
Linux/OSS is about giving people choice! However, if there are so many choices that it chokes a system, what good are they?
I propose that in the future, distributions should all come with some sort of simple default. Why the hell do I need PICO, VI, KEDIT, EMACS.. all on one system? For the love of god, I literally have a new text editor for every day of the week! Why no install just ONE and then give me a 'Customize Install' feature which allows me to install something else if I am a Vi/Emacs bigot. (I'm a Pico bigot, but we won't get into that here.)
The question here is, what is really the best possible combination which will please the most people and piss off the lease?
Do I hear 'large-scale polling'? What, what? Is it just me?
Rami James
Pixel Pusher
--
IE3 anywhere had minimal CSS1 support while the first versions of the recommendations were being written.
Cut out the "coverage BEFORE IT WAS EVEN A COMPLETE RECOMMENDATION" part.
Rami
--