I'd imagine that the KDE widgets should be pretty portable -- the code is clean and high level. On the other hand, anything that involves networking code probably will not port easily since it'd most likely use sockets.
It's against UNIX nature to try to be one-solves-all instead of doing small things well.
That's why GNOME ( and for that matter, KDE ) does a lot of small things well. The GNOME project have written several small APIs, each of which does a small thing well.
GNOME is basically a bunch of applications that use a common set of APIs. No one of those applications "solves all" and not one of the APIs "solves all" either.
Would it not be an issue because the libraries exist on the system anyway regardless of the WM you are using? Someone please enlighten me.
Sure, as long as the libraries are installed , everything works. But there's a problem with printing and font management. If KDE and GNOME have their own font managers, it means that users need to install fonts for GNOME, and then all over, install fonts for KDE. It'd be nice if they all did it one way.
The music software/hardware industry is a cartel, with maybe 3-4 mother corporations controlling everything. A garage startup has little to no chance of challenging them.
If they really do, as was claimed, have a business plan that enables them to distribute more efficiently, then they certainly do have a chance.
As for "getting national chains to buy your product", well these "national chains" are part of the problem -- they are another middleman who takes another percentage markup, inflating prices. To come up with a better business plan than the status-quo, you obviously need to do something different.
They could, if desired, record, master, manufacturer and create the artwork for a release without leaving the building.
Yeah, but they can't distribute it without leaving the building. If they sell the CDs to a middleman for $3- each, and the middleman marks it up 100%, then the retailer marks it up another 100%, the consumer gets the CDs for $12- a pop.
My girlfriend works with a software wholesaler that buys software in volume, and their buy prices are ridiculously low.
This "$2" CD of yours is not directly marked up to $20. What happens is this -- first, the artist wants some royalties. If the artist gets $1-, then the CD costs the label $2- to produce. The label also have other costs like recording, marketting etc. I'm not clear on whether or not you're counting that in your "$2-" figure. By the time the record company are done paying salaries, and recovering their costs, they want to sell the CDs for say , $4-. By the time this goes through a distributer and a record store, it sees a lot of markup. Since you say that CDs cost $20- , I take it you aren't in the US. So there's a good chance everything you buy is subject to import duty ( more percentage markup ) and/or an importers markup.
Anyway, in summary, my main point is -- before you whine about the "big evil record companies", do some research and find out how much it costs for the next middleman to buy a CD. Without any figures, you are just blowing smoke, and your accusation is groundless.
If you have a distribution model that enables you to better compensate the artist and at the same time offer lower prices, then go ahead and form your own non-greedy non-evil record company, and put the rest of the record company out of business. The artists aren't forced to sign up with anyone, they can always form their own labels ( and sometimes they do. ) If you can't do this, you're just blowing smoke.
Seriously, the reason why prices are what they are is that money is intercepted by several layers of middlemen, each who marks it up a percentage ( so the cost rises exponentially with the number of middlemen ). The record company is just one such layer.
As for paying money for music whose authors are dead, I believe usually such music costs less, but also there's the issue that copyright law is imperfect.
Music companies do not have a "right" to my money, they simply exist in an artificially created situation,
Recognition of any "property" is an "artificially created situation". Look, the idea that you "own" your computer is artificial, but that in itself hardly gives me the right to steal it.
At the end of the day though, IMO what it comes down to is this -- at the very least, it's rude and disrespectful to ignore the wishes of the artist who has released under a non-free license.
On the other hand, I really wouldn't hold it against a college student who temporarily freeloads until they can afford the CD. I used to do it (-;
The reason I am not allowed to run linux at the office, is that there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY
Classic fuds from the mouths of the proprietary vendors, echoed by the suits. There is no accountability with proprietary software either. Read the EULA -- it explicitly says so. And it seems that proprietary software is orphaned as frequently as free software ( in fact even old versions of proprietary packages are usually unmaintained -- you need to periodically buy upgrades ). The difference of course is that if you're using free software, your replacement package is free, while with proprietary software, you have to fork out each time. Also, the fact that the code is available means that the author doesn't have anything to hide, and anyone can fix the bugs. As long as there's a lot of interest in the package you're using, it will stay maintained by someone.
TeX -- maybe the most impossible to build, install, and configure software package that exists.
You gotta be kidding../configure; make; make install. All you need is an ANSI C compiler. I compiled it on OpenBSD ( on which it's difficult to compile a lot of Linux packages ) without a hitch.. To configure it, just run "texconfig".
The main reason why there is some complexity in aspects of configuring tex ( eg adding fonts or macros ) is that it is a large complex package. But they seem to be working on it.
Yep, it does eliminate the pain of re-installing -- you can just nuke the old disk image and reinstall the original. Of course, you keep all your personal files in your home directory on Linux, which you share via SAMBA.
IIRC, you can already get VMWare for Windows with a preloaded Linux distribution ( SuSE, IIRC ). It's a great idea IMO, it gives users a chance to try Linux without having to deal with hardware support problems.
beyond all of that, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE SOFTWARE FUNCTIONS AS ADVERTISED?
You don't -- but C2 / B1,2,3 or whatever doesn't really help either, because they can't really check the code line for line to make sure there are no bugs. And one stupid bug can screw everything up.
When it comes to classified systems, you need to consider more than the "security classification", which really only serves as a cool bullet in the feature list. You need to consider the vendors track record, especially with regard to security and bugfixing.
First, let me say that I think the term "desktop environment" is just a cool buzzword. It's imprecise, but it's a term nonprogrammers can understand, hence its popularity. So to understand why your concerns about "desktop environments" do not, IMO, apply to KDE and GNOME, we must identify what it is that KDE and GNOME really are.
GNOME and KDE are not monoliths. They are simply a big bunch of applications that share common APIs. This is a very good thing IMO -- things have evolved to the point that there are two clear winners in the API stakes, GTK/GNOME and QT/KDE. The APIs are certainly modular, though this modularity is at times transparent to the user ( who doesn't know, for example, that "kdesupport" and "kdelibs" are actually several different shared libraries shipped in one package ).
GNOME/KDE are also modular -- you don't need to run all or none of the applications. You only need to have the required shared libraries installed, and you can run any apps. ( for example, there's no reason why you can't just run "panel" and no other GNOME apps. )
There are two ways you can think about KDE/GNOME -- they are either a collection of APIs, or a collection of applications that use those APIs. The fact that you choose to use one of those applications doesn't compel you to use them all. For example, koffice is only "part of KDE" in the sense that it is built on the KDE APIs. But you certainly don't have to run koffice to run other KDE applications ( whether those applications be the window manager, panel, terminal, editor or dialup tool ).
In conclusion, you are free to choose whatever you want. You can run Koffice under Window Maker, with the GNOME panel and transparent eterms running if you like. No one is stopping you.
The main problem with fonts is being able to handle WYSIWYG printing. The real issue is that printing goes through ghostscript, and display goes through X11. This means that any application ( such as Star Office, Applix, Corel WP , Abiword ) needs to install a "private" font manager to make sure that the X11 fonts the application uses have corresponding outline ( Type1 or TrueType ) fonts.
IMO, we really don't want a GNOME-specific solution to this problem, because then users will have to install fonts once into KDE and once into GNOME -- this is an improvement over installing fonts once into every app, but it's still unsatisfactory.
As for TeX fonts ( metafont ), they are a completely different beast. They are very high quality, but render very slowly, and are unsuitable for WYSIWYG publishing. The TeX font system is also somewhat more complex than anything you'd use for WYSIWYG publishing, and as such, it probably needs to be kept seperate.
PS: For everything you ever wanted to know about Type on Linux, check out the Font HOWTO. Cheers,
Hi. As the author of the font HOWTO, one issue I've had to address is the lack of a WYSIWYG font system. It boils down to what I think of as the WYSIWYG Typography Problem -- which is this: show me some code that reliably displays a typeface on the screen, and prints text using the same typeface ( at a printer resolution, of course ).
The problem, of course, is that the printing (usually ) goes through ghostscript, while the screen fonts are handled by X11, which operates independently of ghostscript. However, given a screen ( ie X11 font ), there is no canonical way to get the corresponding outline file (pf[ab]|ttf) or the detailed metric information ( such as kerning ). This problem is quite deep in some sense, because the fact that the X client and X server run on different machines means they may not have the same typefaces available. In short, Linux's right hand does not know what it's left hand is doing when it comes to font management.
Applications such as Star Office and Applixware "solve" this problem by using a text configuration file that basically consists of a catalogue of mappings from screen fonts ( in particular, XFLDs ) and printing fonts ( including outline files, metric files and the printer font name ). While these solutions are all more or less satisfactory in their own right, there are too many of them -- we need one GUI font manager that all apps can share.
It is very unfortunate that there are several incompatible solutions to the problem, because it means that the Linux user needs to install their typefaces once for each WYSIWYG app they need. A standard would be a very good thing. Personally, I like the idea of a well documented XML configuration file that could be used by any app regardless of the GUI API used.
In conclusion, my question is this -- What are GNOMEs plans for attacking the WYSIWYG typography problem ? And will the solution be GTK/GNOME specific ?
So we just illegalize all information sharing due to possible differing opinions on quality of a teacher?
IF you think this is my point, you've misunderstood me. No, I don't believe the laws need to be changed. I don't believe this case requires special treatment -- it should be judged by the existing criteria for defamation.
een some of your other posts on this forum regarding gatekeepers on such information, and you seem to be making a value judgement that the usefulness of collaborative discourse is negated by the ability of some to spread false information
Actually, I don't know what "collaborative discourse" you are talking about. The comments cited in the article didn't sound like "collaborative discourse" to me. If you want "freedom of information", and "accountability", the standard student questionaires are superior to this web forum.
Free speech is a good thing and all that, but spreading misinformation is not a right. I believe the website should be accountable for its content, especially if they choose to avail authors of accountability by allowing anonymous postings.
While a grade is not supposed to represent a professor's opinion of a student's manner, it often does. It's very hard for most people to separate opinions of a person, and that person's work
This is wrong, and I'm speaking as someone who gives out grades. I know a lot of students share your thoughts ( this is the students point of view to some degree ) but they are simply wrong, because they don't try to see it from the prof's point of view. You can't improve your grades by brown-nosing. The profs will smile at the students who brown nose, then flunk them the next day ( if appropriate ) without a second thought. The truth is, that the prof wants to grade as quickly as possible without being unfair, and daydreaming about your preconceptions about a student simply wastes time. The prof hands out a grade based on the quality of the workj under his nose. Thinking about the student, the students prior record, etc slows down the process. Grading a big stack of papers takes a long time unless you're really efficient. I don't even look at the names on the papers while I'm grading -- I simply don't have time. If you'd ever tried dealing with a stack of 150 papers, you would understand this.
The obvious problem, however, is that his personality is overbearing and haughty. That IS something to take into consideration when signing up for a professor's class.
Odd though it may seem, being a "nice guy" doesn't help your evaluations much, if at all -- again, speaking from experience. The most important thing is to be fair in your grading. The second most important is to be realistic in your expectations ( ie don't flunk half the class ). Next on the list is probably giving good lectures. It's important to be respectful towards the students ( ie not outright rude or condescending ) but there are other issues which have more impact on ones grades.
If I was the one defamed, I would just post a rebuttal seriously questioning the integrity of the poster based on his elements in composition and interpretation of trut
The prof doesn't have that much time to run around after students. If a student wants to defame a prof full-time ( for example, by flooding the message board ), you can't really fight them.
Being published is exactly why universities are going downhill.
You're forgetting that the Universities function is not just as an educational institution -- it's also a research institution. If what you're saying is true, then why is it that the best research institutions also happen to be the schools that are perceived as the best places to get an education ?
Earlier on, the GTK docs were pretty attrocious. The docs for the ncurses C++ interface are so bad that it's easier just to use the C API from C++. In fact there is no online C++ documentation. Oh, and the man pages ? No , they are not good enough. They are useful as memory-jolters, but certainly not adequate in themselves.
There are some things that are very well documented -- for example, python, perl, make. And some things that aren't.
BTW, I have "Beginning Linux programming". It's a great book.
A capitalist economy requires a free market to function properly. A free market by definition is not controlled by monopolies. Don't tell us in the same breath that you want capitalism and you want a monopoly. The two cannot coexist.
Firstly, what do you mean by "opening it up" ? In any case, they can't force MS to do this without offering some compensation , since MS already make money by licensing source code. They cannot force MS to license Windows under any true OpenSource license without dishing out a lot of compensation.
The second thing I have a problem with is Windows forking. The last thing the industry wants/needs is a Windows fork.
I agree with you that while "lynching" Microsoft might satisfy some salivating geeks, it's not terribly constructive. On the other hand, I do not believe that a breakup would be harmful to Microsoft or the industry in the long run. I don'y believe you can kill them by seperating them, and by seperatng them, the end result will be a less restrained market.
I don't think trying to "limit Microsoft's practices" will help too much -- it's too heavy handed, and it forces the government to buy into things like software design ( a very bad idea )
I think the implications of the "OpenSource Windows" solution would be much more severe than those of a breakup. Do you really think the market wants several companies to sell incompatible versions of Windows ? I bet the market would stick to the Microsoft one, because they already have the brand name premium. The other problem is this -- the government can't simply decide to take away Microsoft's main product ( or force them to give it away ). Not without compensation, anyway.
I agree with you that MS have brought out some "good stuff", but I don't see how a split would place that in jeapordy.
Don't be stupid. Noone in their right mind wants to see Microsoft broken up. It's no good for anyone
Put it this way -- you wont catch me shorting them if a breakup is announced ( would you ? ) I think it would be good for their competitors, and the breakup companies would still do well.
It's all well to ask them to "open their APIs", but what does that mean ? What's this MSDN thing, doesn't it document their APIs ? The problem is that it's difficult to prove the existence of "undocumented" APIs, and there are always going to be inadequacies in any documentation. For example, what do you do if they document some of the APIs badly ? This would make them no worse than ( for example ) early GTK , aside from the fact that GTK was OpenSource. Now if MS released the source for their APIs, that would probably be adequate if extreme
You might argue that the breakup is a bad idea, but do you have any better ideas ?
Slashdot Mirror
That's why GNOME ( and for that matter, KDE ) does a lot of small things well. The GNOME project have written several small APIs, each of which does a small thing well.
GNOME is basically a bunch of applications that use a common set of APIs. No one of those applications "solves all" and not one of the APIs "solves all" either.
GNOME is not a monolith.
Sure, as long as the libraries are installed , everything works. But there's a problem with printing and font management. If KDE and GNOME have their own font managers, it means that users need to install fonts for GNOME, and then all over, install fonts for KDE. It'd be nice if they all did it one way.
If they really do, as was claimed, have a business plan that enables them to distribute more efficiently, then they certainly do have a chance.
As for "getting national chains to buy your product", well these "national chains" are part of the problem -- they are another middleman who takes another percentage markup, inflating prices. To come up with a better business plan than the status-quo, you obviously need to do something different.
They could, if desired, record, master, manufacturer and create the artwork for a release without leaving the building.
Yeah, but they can't distribute it without leaving the building. If they sell the CDs to a middleman for $3- each, and the middleman marks it up 100%, then the retailer marks it up another 100%, the consumer gets the CDs for $12- a pop.
My girlfriend works with a software wholesaler that buys software in volume, and their buy prices are ridiculously low.
This "$2" CD of yours is not directly marked up to $20. What happens is this -- first, the artist wants some royalties. If the artist gets $1-, then the CD costs the label $2- to produce. The label also have other costs like recording, marketting etc. I'm not clear on whether or not you're counting that in your "$2-" figure. By the time the record company are done paying salaries, and recovering their costs, they want to sell the CDs for say , $4-. By the time this goes through a distributer and a record store, it sees a lot of markup. Since you say that CDs cost $20- , I take it you aren't in the US. So there's a good chance everything you buy is subject to import duty ( more percentage markup ) and/or an importers markup.
Anyway, in summary, my main point is -- before you whine about the "big evil record companies", do some research and find out how much it costs for the next middleman to buy a CD. Without any figures, you are just blowing smoke, and your accusation is groundless.
Seriously, the reason why prices are what they are is that money is intercepted by several layers of middlemen, each who marks it up a percentage ( so the cost rises exponentially with the number of middlemen ). The record company is just one such layer.
As for paying money for music whose authors are dead, I believe usually such music costs less, but also there's the issue that copyright law is imperfect.
Recognition of any "property" is an "artificially created situation". Look, the idea that you "own" your computer is artificial, but that in itself hardly gives me the right to steal it.
At the end of the day though, IMO what it comes down to is this -- at the very least, it's rude and disrespectful to ignore the wishes of the artist who has released under a non-free license.
On the other hand, I really wouldn't hold it against a college student who temporarily freeloads until they can afford the CD. I used to do it (-;
Classic fuds from the mouths of the proprietary vendors, echoed by the suits. There is no accountability with proprietary software either. Read the EULA -- it explicitly says so. And it seems that proprietary software is orphaned as frequently as free software ( in fact even old versions of proprietary packages are usually unmaintained -- you need to periodically buy upgrades ). The difference of course is that if you're using free software, your replacement package is free, while with proprietary software, you have to fork out each time. Also, the fact that the code is available means that the author doesn't have anything to hide, and anyone can fix the bugs. As long as there's a lot of interest in the package you're using, it will stay maintained by someone.
You gotta be kidding. ./configure; make; make install. All you need is an ANSI C compiler. I compiled it on OpenBSD ( on which it's difficult to compile a lot of Linux packages ) without a hitch.. To configure it, just run "texconfig".
The main reason why there is some complexity in aspects of configuring tex ( eg adding fonts or macros ) is that it is a large complex package. But they seem to be working on it.
You don't -- but C2 / B1,2,3 or whatever doesn't really help either, because they can't really check the code line for line to make sure there are no bugs. And one stupid bug can screw everything up.
When it comes to classified systems, you need to consider more than the "security classification", which really only serves as a cool bullet in the feature list. You need to consider the vendors track record, especially with regard to security and bugfixing.
GNOME and KDE are not monoliths. They are simply a big bunch of applications that share common APIs. This is a very good thing IMO -- things have evolved to the point that there are two clear winners in the API stakes, GTK/GNOME and QT/KDE. The APIs are certainly modular, though this modularity is at times transparent to the user ( who doesn't know, for example, that "kdesupport" and "kdelibs" are actually several different shared libraries shipped in one package ).
GNOME/KDE are also modular -- you don't need to run all or none of the applications. You only need to have the required shared libraries installed, and you can run any apps. ( for example, there's no reason why you can't just run "panel" and no other GNOME apps. )
There are two ways you can think about KDE/GNOME -- they are either a collection of APIs, or a collection of applications that use those APIs. The fact that you choose to use one of those applications doesn't compel you to use them all. For example, koffice is only "part of KDE" in the sense that it is built on the KDE APIs. But you certainly don't have to run koffice to run other KDE applications ( whether those applications be the window manager, panel, terminal, editor or dialup tool ).
In conclusion, you are free to choose whatever you want. You can run Koffice under Window Maker, with the GNOME panel and transparent eterms running if you like. No one is stopping you.
IMO, we really don't want a GNOME-specific solution to this problem, because then users will have to install fonts once into KDE and once into GNOME -- this is an improvement over installing fonts once into every app, but it's still unsatisfactory.
As for TeX fonts ( metafont ), they are a completely different beast. They are very high quality, but render very slowly, and are unsuitable for WYSIWYG publishing. The TeX font system is also somewhat more complex than anything you'd use for WYSIWYG publishing, and as such, it probably needs to be kept seperate.
PS: For everything you ever wanted to know about Type on Linux, check out the Font HOWTO. Cheers,
The problem, of course, is that the printing (usually ) goes through ghostscript, while the screen fonts are handled by X11, which operates independently of ghostscript. However, given a screen ( ie X11 font ), there is no canonical way to get the corresponding outline file (pf[ab]|ttf) or the detailed metric information ( such as kerning ). This problem is quite deep in some sense, because the fact that the X client and X server run on different machines means they may not have the same typefaces available. In short, Linux's right hand does not know what it's left hand is doing when it comes to font management.
Applications such as Star Office and Applixware "solve" this problem by using a text configuration file that basically consists of a catalogue of mappings from screen fonts ( in particular, XFLDs ) and printing fonts ( including outline files, metric files and the printer font name ). While these solutions are all more or less satisfactory in their own right, there are too many of them -- we need one GUI font manager that all apps can share.
It is very unfortunate that there are several incompatible solutions to the problem, because it means that the Linux user needs to install their typefaces once for each WYSIWYG app they need. A standard would be a very good thing. Personally, I like the idea of a well documented XML configuration file that could be used by any app regardless of the GUI API used.
In conclusion, my question is this -- What are GNOMEs plans for attacking the WYSIWYG typography problem ? And will the solution be GTK/GNOME specific ?
IF you think this is my point, you've misunderstood me. No, I don't believe the laws need to be changed. I don't believe this case requires special treatment -- it should be judged by the existing criteria for defamation.
een some of your other posts on this forum regarding gatekeepers on such information, and you seem to be making a value judgement that the usefulness of collaborative discourse is negated by the ability of some to spread false information
Actually, I don't know what "collaborative discourse" you are talking about. The comments cited in the article didn't sound like "collaborative discourse" to me. If you want "freedom of information", and "accountability", the standard student questionaires are superior to this web forum.
Free speech is a good thing and all that, but spreading misinformation is not a right. I believe the website should be accountable for its content, especially if they choose to avail authors of accountability by allowing anonymous postings.
This is wrong, and I'm speaking as someone who gives out grades. I know a lot of students share your thoughts ( this is the students point of view to some degree ) but they are simply wrong, because they don't try to see it from the prof's point of view. You can't improve your grades by brown-nosing. The profs will smile at the students who brown nose, then flunk them the next day ( if appropriate ) without a second thought. The truth is, that the prof wants to grade as quickly as possible without being unfair, and daydreaming about your preconceptions about a student simply wastes time. The prof hands out a grade based on the quality of the workj under his nose. Thinking about the student, the students prior record, etc slows down the process. Grading a big stack of papers takes a long time unless you're really efficient. I don't even look at the names on the papers while I'm grading -- I simply don't have time. If you'd ever tried dealing with a stack of 150 papers, you would understand this.
The obvious problem, however, is that his personality is overbearing and haughty. That IS something to take into consideration when signing up for a professor's class.
Odd though it may seem, being a "nice guy" doesn't help your evaluations much, if at all -- again, speaking from experience. The most important thing is to be fair in your grading. The second most important is to be realistic in your expectations ( ie don't flunk half the class ). Next on the list is probably giving good lectures. It's important to be respectful towards the students ( ie not outright rude or condescending ) but there are other issues which have more impact on ones grades.
The prof doesn't have that much time to run around after students. If a student wants to defame a prof full-time ( for example, by flooding the message board ), you can't really fight them.
You're forgetting that the Universities function is not just as an educational institution -- it's also a research institution. If what you're saying is true, then why is it that the best research institutions also happen to be the schools that are perceived as the best places to get an education ?
There are some things that are very well documented -- for example, python, perl, make. And some things that aren't.
BTW, I have "Beginning Linux programming". It's a great book.
The second thing I have a problem with is Windows forking. The last thing the industry wants/needs is a Windows fork.
I don't think trying to "limit Microsoft's practices" will help too much -- it's too heavy handed, and it forces the government to buy into things like software design ( a very bad idea )
I agree with you that MS have brought out some "good stuff", but I don't see how a split would place that in jeapordy.
Put it this way -- you wont catch me shorting them if a breakup is announced ( would you ? ) I think it would be good for their competitors, and the breakup companies would still do well.
It's all well to ask them to "open their APIs", but what does that mean ? What's this MSDN thing, doesn't it document their APIs ? The problem is that it's difficult to prove the existence of "undocumented" APIs, and there are always going to be inadequacies in any documentation. For example, what do you do if they document some of the APIs badly ? This would make them no worse than ( for example ) early GTK , aside from the fact that GTK was OpenSource. Now if MS released the source for their APIs, that would probably be adequate if extreme
You might argue that the breakup is a bad idea, but do you have any better ideas ?