Couldn't get the link to work properly, but I'll extrapolate and comment anyway...
Are they saying that you can export strong crypto, but you can't export sourcecode to strong crypto? Because if so, then it just doesn't make any sense. Where do you distinguish between sourcecode and not sourcecode? Human-readability? If so, then that means you couldn't ship a strong crypto implementation in any sort of scripting lanaguage or other interpreted form (e.g. Perl). And what about assembly - would you be allowed to ship an ASM sourcefile? If not then can someone explain the conceptual difference between an ASM sourcefile and the output of a disassembler?
Once again, governments fail to understand technology...
Of course it drains 90-100% of your CPU, it's just thrashing around rendering as fast as it can. It would drain that amount on a CPU twice as fast. What would be more interesting is if they put a framerate counter up there so you could get some idea of the fillrate it's delivering.
Look at it this way. 99% of the operations a user can perform will be performed only rarely. This means that unless they are at the far-end of the bell-curve marked "geek" a user will not have had the time or inclination to learn the super-optimal-figure-movement-minimising command-line way of doing it. This is where easy to learn becomes the same thing as easy to use - the operation is rare enough that for most users, performing the operation involves learning how to do it. In this situation, friendly icons win hands down.
For the kinds of operations that average users spend most of their time doing - moving files around, cutting and pasting bits of documents - Windows has plenty of shortcuts that even occasional or inexperienced users quickly become accustomed to, but at no stage is the user thrown in at the deep end and expected to pick them up straight away. Result: for an average user, Windows is easier to learn and easier to use.
"Designed by idiots for idiots" should be the mantra of anyone who seriously wants to take on the mass market.
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't get the link to work properly, but I'll extrapolate and comment anyway...
Are they saying that you can export strong crypto, but you can't export sourcecode to strong crypto? Because if so, then it just doesn't make any sense. Where do you distinguish between sourcecode and not sourcecode? Human-readability? If so, then that means you couldn't ship a strong crypto implementation in any sort of scripting lanaguage or other interpreted form (e.g. Perl). And what about assembly - would you be allowed to ship an ASM sourcefile? If not then can someone explain the conceptual difference between an ASM sourcefile and the output of a disassembler?
Once again, governments fail to understand technology...
Of course it drains 90-100% of your CPU, it's just thrashing around rendering as fast as it can. It would drain that amount on a CPU twice as fast. What would be more interesting is if they put a framerate counter up there so you could get some idea of the fillrate it's delivering.
Look at it this way. 99% of the operations a user can perform will be performed only rarely. This means that unless they are at the far-end of the bell-curve marked "geek" a user will not have had the time or inclination to learn the super-optimal-figure-movement-minimising command-line way of doing it. This is where easy to learn becomes the same thing as easy to use - the operation is rare enough that for most users, performing the operation involves learning how to do it. In this situation, friendly icons win hands down.
For the kinds of operations that average users spend most of their time doing - moving files around, cutting and pasting bits of documents - Windows has plenty of shortcuts that even occasional or inexperienced users quickly become accustomed to, but at no stage is the user thrown in at the deep end and expected to pick them up straight away. Result: for an average user, Windows is easier to learn and easier to use.
"Designed by idiots for idiots" should be the mantra of anyone who seriously wants to take on the mass market.