Nowhere in the GPL does it state you cannot make a commercial product with GPL'd software. The GPL simply says that if you ship binaries of your software, you must also make the source readily available if someone asks for it.
That's pretty much it. No, no more. All the rest of it is legal embellishment to classify what software falls under what jurisdiction, etc. Also, (because this is a major peeve of mine) commercial software does not mean "closed source"! Get that through your heads people. QT is commercial software, Linux distros are commercial software, Eazel is/will be commercial software. Any software that brings in money is by definition "commercial software". Nowhere in the definition of commercial does it say you cannot release your source, or that if you do, you cease to become commercial. Just like it doesn't state in the GPL that if you sell open source software, it ceases to be open source.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The biggest benefit for microkernels is twofold:
a) their small, minimalist design allows for fewer bugs, greater flexibility, etc, etc(all the old arguments you hear about them)...
and another point which I thought was very valid,
b) the fact that very little code is in the kernel allows for better realtime performance. The less time that must be spent in kernel mode(where interrupts are disabled), the more time can be devoted to actual work and servicing devices.
Some microkernels do a better job at efficiency than Mach (L3 for example). At some point, the hardware might actually get fast enough that the trade-off is nearly always worth while.
L4 and EROS kernels are even faster than previous generation microkernels. And it's not a matter of hardware getting faster; it's damn fast right now and the context switching algorithms used are so much better that's it's not even slow anymore. The problem is getting somebody to do ia u-kernel right and to build an actual system on it. While the people working on L4 are doing great work, they're doing it for research purposes so it's not going anywhere practical, anytime soon.
IMO, overhead penalty invloved with context switching in a u-kernel OS is totally worth it, especially for a desktop system. And QNX proves that it can be done right.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Truthfully, there are a lot of people out there for whom Linux is not an option. There are a lot of people out there who don't know how to compile the source they got from someone to get a program to run.
Yes, and I was one of them. Repeat and emphasize: was. This remarkable transformation came about as an act of learning something everyone is capable of, though they fight it every step of the way.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
No, you are wrong. XHTML requires lowercase as evidenced by the W3 XHTML 1.0 spec section 4.2 aptly titled 'Element and attribute names must be in lower case'.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Re:So -- cross platform apps?
on
OS X
·
· Score: 1
Oh, come on. It's not theft, it's using code without permission from the original author.
Then I guess it's ok for people to burn whatever music CD's or DVD's they like. After all, it's not theft, it's making a copy without permission. Besides, those companies didn't actually lose any money.
Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it?
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
If you visit linuxppc.org, you'll see lots of references to Apple helping the linuxPPC folks. They have people working at Apple who's sole purpose is to release specs and work with people trying to use Apple hardware.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
As for having the will-power to keep yourself in shape and thus countering the effects of aging, that's just a delaying action at best. You will still die. That "ripped" cop will look good at his funeral. Those 70-80 year olds who run marathons will be running until they have a heart attack and die. In the end, all physical fitness does is delay the inevitable.
That's right. It is inevitable. I wasn't disputing that. I was arguing that growing old and dying doesn't mean slowly withering away and becoming more debilitated and dying like you said in your previous post.
Science can help to delay the inevitable even further.
I'm sure it could. No disputing that. I was just trying to shatter the common conception that getting old means becoming frail, helpless and in need of constant care.
Not to mention the fact that as you get older, you increase the odds of some limiting disease or injury that will reduce your ability to work out.
That's true. But I bet that the people who let themselves become frail as they age are the ones who have the most difficulty recovering.
By the way, some extremely unhealthy people live to be very old, and some really healthy people die in their 50's. Excersize is no guarantee.
Very true. In probability and statistics, those cases fall into called the Standard Deviation category. The mean is what's important when looking at general trends. The general trend suggests that taking care of yourself can lessen many if not most of the problems associated with old age. The mean is what most people will experience if they take care of themselves.
Oh, and thanks for counseling suicide for those who get upset when friends and family die.
Well, sometimes outright bluntness and shock are the only ways to get through to people. I wasn't counseling anything, I was merely stating a fact. Logically speaking, the only way to escape not having to endure such loss is to end your life before you encounter such a situation. There is no other way. Any continuation of your life must be accompanied by the realization that you will lose people you care about. I don't support suicide, I would never contemplate it and I have smacked friends who have tried and/or even considered it.
I wasn't saying that the death of a loved one was an event that couldn't be survived, I was saying that there is no event that will more wrench at your soul.
And I didn't dispute that. I know you didn't mean that such an event wasn't survivable; I've survived it, and I'm sure you have. But the reality of life never leaves my mind. People will die, sometimes for good reason, sometimes for no apparent reason at all, but it will happen. Unfortunately, it seems most people just ignore the thought of death as if it could never happen to them... then it comes crashing into their lives and they have no defense against it.
But it would be nice to remove the element of certainty from death. The knowledge that you WILL die, and you have just moved one day closer to that death.
Nothing will ever do that. You will die whether you find the elixir to immortality or not. Eventually, you will have an accident and die or you will be killed at the end of the universe. That's as good as forever for most people, but the day will come. Just because you've gotten rid of old age does not mean death will disappear. As you said yourself, the longer you live, the greater your chance of having a fatal accident. No matter how hard you try, there is no escaping it.
It would be nice to think that, hey, maybe my friends and I will still be hanging out together 50 years from now. Or that I will still see my mom every year for the holiday season up through the next century.
If you thought deaths were depressing and hard to deal with before, wait till everyone becomes 'immortal' and someone dies in an accident. If people naively ignore death now when it is a part of their everyday lives, think how much more shaken they will be when someone they care about dies. They thought they had gotten rid of death and it comes crashing back into their lives.
A death will become a hundred times more tragic and painful when you realize that this person could have lived another 3000 years and now it's over. When you thought you had eternity to get to know them, to be with them, then you blink and they're gone. People already have little defense against this; add immortality to the equation and I can only see it getting worse.
You may think immortality is a blessing, but perhaps you should think deeply about the consequences. I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue it, that I wouldn't want to have the choice. I would certainly love the chance to live another 100 years(or 2;-) I'm just saying that we should never walk into anything blindly.
A time limit on a person's life should make him think alot more about what's important, what he wants to do or accomplish while he has the chance. Is it really worth going to work those extra few hours when you could spend it with your son/friends/girlfriend? Is work really that important? If you were immortal, would you ever get the feeling that you were wasting your life away doing something? Would you ever get the thought 'why am I doing this? I'm wasting my time and my talent, I'm capable of so much more'? Would you ever get the urge to actually do anything with your life if you could keep saying to yourself 'I have at least another 10,000 years, so what's ten years doing this meaningless crap'? Do you really feel that's a good thing? Subsituting quality for quantity has never worked in any situation I have ever encountered. Why would it here? Why would it make life any better?
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
But alot of the stuff you're talking about has more to do with lack of maintenance more than old age. And yes, I have visited alot of nursing homes so I know exactly what you mean. The truth is, people just don't know how to take care of themselves, or they just don't bother. I read an interesting article once about a man(a cop incidentally). The guy was incredibly muscular and unbelievably cut; he would almost put Arnold to shame. Do you know how old he was? Over 60. Over 60!!! There are people over 70 still running marathons, there are people who are over 100 years old still actively working on farms. They're all still fully functional, completely able, and still sharp and fully aware of themselves.
I know for a fact that I will never become someone trapped in a nursing home because I will never let it happen. Granted, there are unavoidable cirumstances that force people into that kind of care. Alzhiemers, dementia from repeated heart attacks, strokes or aneurysms, physical problems such as paralysis from accidents and such. But I honestly believe that alot of people that end up apparently debilitated and unable to care for themselves, are themselves the problem(note, I didn't say everybody). I am of that belief because I see it everyday in my family. In my opinion, all it takes is will power, and if you don't have enough to get up and keep yourself in shape, then it's your own fault.
Chalk me up as uncaring, cold-hearted, I don't care. I know what I've seen.
On a more philosophical note, age and it's associated change of life patterns can be good for people. It can change attitudes and it's especially good at shattering the younger generation's notions of invulnerability (disclaimer: I still suffer from the dementia myself) As one of my favorite mentors once said:
Learning acquired in youth arrests the evil of old age; and if you understand that old age has wisdom for its food, you will so conduct yourself in youth that your old age will not lack for nourishment.
~ Leonardo da Vinci ~
About death and watching people die, well guess what? That's life isn't it. Life, death and rebirth. Every day you should be aware of the fact that either you or someone you know can die at any moment. If you can't live with the thought of losing someone, then maybe you should end your life now. That is the only way out because otherwise you will have to live with the experience of losing someone you care about.
There are only three events in a man's life; birth, life and death; he is not conscious of being born, he dies in pain, and he forgets to live.
~Jean de La Bruyere ~
As a closing thought(god, I sound like Jerry Springer):
Pain makes man think. Thought makes man wise. Wisdom makes life endurable.
~ John Patrick ~
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Actually, it is absolutely impossible to live forever. One day you WILL die. Maybe not from old age, but the longer you live the more likely you are to die from an accident. And if you manage to escape all of those, there's still the death of the universe to deal with, so there's no winning in the end. So if you think about it, there are two choices: a) grow old and die a peaceful death, or b) try to live as long as possible and eventually die a horrible violent death. How's that for sunny news?:-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Of course muscles regenerate. When you work out you're tearing tissue all the time. That's part of the reason you're sore afterwards. Bulking up has to do with muscle regeneration and repair.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I was specifically referring to GPL binaries. Assuming that a CD is made of GPL software(like Debian excluding non-free), my argument also applies there.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
You're right. Unfortunately, that's not the way these "copy protection" measures work. They are just a big pain in the ass and restrict you from actually doing things with your computer.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
"...as personal computer sales are flattening, hardware makers are doing what they can to help jump-start the market for media content that might persuade consumers to buy more high-end machines."
They finished talking about how every single attempt at building in copy control for media content has failed miserably because nobody bought into the products. Then hardware makers say "computer sales are going down, so let's build in copy protection." Hello? They think copy protection is going to increase sales? Force people to buy higher end machines? Do they even realize what they're saying?
Of course, it just occured to me that perhaps this is an interesting trick. They build in copy protection for their lower end machines, and then provide high-end machines without copy-protection for much higher prices(despite the fact that it would actually cost less to leave it out). They can cite economies of scale to justify the higher price since most people wouldn't even know what they were getting into by buying a cheaper machine. Not that the hardware companies have to justify anything anyway.
In the end, I guess the only thing that matters is if they can get every single hardware maker into building these measures in. If they don't, then people will just flock to whoever is left
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I must add to that and say that alot of the graphics used in Aqua are not vector drawings, but the Core most certainly is vector based. Unless, of course, you can prove me otherwise...
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Display PostScript isn't vector based the way Aqua is AFAIK(though I think it COULD be if you tried). Besides, even if it were, there are no environments using Display PostScript in such a way(which was my point). And yes, I am very familiar with GNUStep and MacOS which both used Display PostScript, but once again, not in a vector based GUI. Swing is definitely not vector based.
I think perhaps you're misunderstanding what vector based means. It's not about auto-scaling pixmaps. It's about not having pixmaps at all. All your drawing primitives and much on-screen data are defined by equations. Resizing, translating, rotating are not about matrix multiplications and manipulations ala Gimp/PhotoShop. They're all perfect operations because the transformations are not being applied to a pixmap. No need for anti-aliasing, no need for bicubic interpolation, nearest neighbour or anything like that. I know I'm not even doing it justice, so I'll provide the link to a very informative article about Aqua.
No toolkit will do that for you without expensive matrix transformations. I think if you check out the Berlin webpage under the "Screenshots" section, you may see what I mean.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Slashdot Mirror
Two words to define the difference between the Linux approach and Windows: it's open.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I did not mean to say that Sun would make a commercial product out of KDE...obviously that would violate the GPL
No it wouldn't. God I hate it when people say this. See my other post in this thread.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Nowhere in the GPL does it state you cannot make a commercial product with GPL'd software. The GPL simply says that if you ship binaries of your software, you must also make the source readily available if someone asks for it.
That's pretty much it. No, no more. All the rest of it is legal embellishment to classify what software falls under what jurisdiction, etc. Also, (because this is a major peeve of mine) commercial software does not mean "closed source"! Get that through your heads people. QT is commercial software, Linux distros are commercial software, Eazel is/will be commercial software. Any software that brings in money is by definition "commercial software". Nowhere in the definition of commercial does it say you cannot release your source, or that if you do, you cease to become commercial. Just like it doesn't state in the GPL that if you sell open source software, it ceases to be open source.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The biggest benefit for microkernels is twofold:
a) their small, minimalist design allows for fewer bugs, greater flexibility, etc, etc(all the old arguments you hear about them)...
and another point which I thought was very valid,
b) the fact that very little code is in the kernel allows for better realtime performance. The less time that must be spent in kernel mode(where interrupts are disabled), the more time can be devoted to actual work and servicing devices.
Some microkernels do a better job at efficiency than Mach (L3 for example). At some point, the hardware might actually get fast enough that the trade-off is nearly always worth while.
L4 and EROS kernels are even faster than previous generation microkernels. And it's not a matter of hardware getting faster; it's damn fast right now and the context switching algorithms used are so much better that's it's not even slow anymore. The problem is getting somebody to do ia u-kernel right and to build an actual system on it. While the people working on L4 are doing great work, they're doing it for research purposes so it's not going anywhere practical, anytime soon.
IMO, overhead penalty invloved with context switching in a u-kernel OS is totally worth it, especially for a desktop system. And QNX proves that it can be done right.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Nicer from an idealogical and design perspective, not a practical perspective is what he was trying to say.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Thanks for adding that useless comment to the conversation.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Truthfully, there are a lot of people out there for whom Linux is not an option. There are a lot of people out there who don't know how to compile the source they got from someone to get a program to run.
Yes, and I was one of them. Repeat and emphasize: was. This remarkable transformation came about as an act of learning something everyone is capable of, though they fight it every step of the way.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
No, you are wrong. XHTML requires lowercase as evidenced by the W3 XHTML 1.0 spec section 4.2 aptly titled 'Element and attribute names must be in lower case'.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Then use, GNUStep
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Oh, come on. It's not theft, it's using code without permission from the original author.
Then I guess it's ok for people to burn whatever music CD's or DVD's they like. After all, it's not theft, it's making a copy without permission. Besides, those companies didn't actually lose any money.
Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it?
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I've heard that Zoolib is almost as good as Be's APIs.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
If you visit linuxppc.org, you'll see lots of references to Apple helping the linuxPPC folks. They have people working at Apple who's sole purpose is to release specs and work with people trying to use Apple hardware.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
As for having the will-power to keep yourself in shape and thus countering the effects of aging, that's just a delaying action at best. You will still die. That "ripped" cop will look good at his funeral. Those 70-80 year olds who run marathons will be running until they have a heart attack and die. In the end, all physical fitness does is delay the inevitable.
;-) I'm just saying that we should never walk into anything blindly.
That's right. It is inevitable. I wasn't disputing that. I was arguing that growing old and dying doesn't mean slowly withering away and becoming more debilitated and dying like you said in your previous post.
Science can help to delay the inevitable even further.
I'm sure it could. No disputing that. I was just trying to shatter the common conception that getting old means becoming frail, helpless and in need of constant care.
Not to mention the fact that as you get older, you increase the odds of some limiting disease or injury that will reduce your ability to work out.
That's true. But I bet that the people who let themselves become frail as they age are the ones who have the most difficulty recovering.
By the way, some extremely unhealthy people live to be very old, and some really healthy people die in their 50's. Excersize is no guarantee.
Very true. In probability and statistics, those cases fall into called the Standard Deviation category. The mean is what's important when looking at general trends. The general trend suggests that taking care of yourself can lessen many if not most of the problems associated with old age. The mean is what most people will experience if they take care of themselves.
Oh, and thanks for counseling suicide for those who get upset when friends and family die.
Well, sometimes outright bluntness and shock are the only ways to get through to people. I wasn't counseling anything, I was merely stating a fact. Logically speaking, the only way to escape not having to endure such loss is to end your life before you encounter such a situation. There is no other way. Any continuation of your life must be accompanied by the realization that you will lose people you care about. I don't support suicide, I would never contemplate it and I have smacked friends who have tried and/or even considered it.
I wasn't saying that the death of a loved one was an event that couldn't be survived, I was saying that there is no event that will more wrench at your soul.
And I didn't dispute that. I know you didn't mean that such an event wasn't survivable; I've survived it, and I'm sure you have. But the reality of life never leaves my mind. People will die, sometimes for good reason, sometimes for no apparent reason at all, but it will happen. Unfortunately, it seems most people just ignore the thought of death as if it could never happen to them... then it comes crashing into their lives and they have no defense against it.
But it would be nice to remove the element of certainty from death. The knowledge that you WILL die, and you have just moved one day closer to that death.
Nothing will ever do that. You will die whether you find the elixir to immortality or not. Eventually, you will have an accident and die or you will be killed at the end of the universe. That's as good as forever for most people, but the day will come. Just because you've gotten rid of old age does not mean death will disappear. As you said yourself, the longer you live, the greater your chance of having a fatal accident. No matter how hard you try, there is no escaping it.
It would be nice to think that, hey, maybe my friends and I will still be hanging out together 50 years from now. Or that I will still see my mom every year for the holiday season up through the next century.
If you thought deaths were depressing and hard to deal with before, wait till everyone becomes 'immortal' and someone dies in an accident. If people naively ignore death now when it is a part of their everyday lives, think how much more shaken they will be when someone they care about dies. They thought they had gotten rid of death and it comes crashing back into their lives.
A death will become a hundred times more tragic and painful when you realize that this person could have lived another 3000 years and now it's over. When you thought you had eternity to get to know them, to be with them, then you blink and they're gone. People already have little defense against this; add immortality to the equation and I can only see it getting worse.
You may think immortality is a blessing, but perhaps you should think deeply about the consequences. I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue it, that I wouldn't want to have the choice. I would certainly love the chance to live another 100 years(or 2
A time limit on a person's life should make him think alot more about what's important, what he wants to do or accomplish while he has the chance. Is it really worth going to work those extra few hours when you could spend it with your son/friends/girlfriend? Is work really that important? If you were immortal, would you ever get the feeling that you were wasting your life away doing something? Would you ever get the thought 'why am I doing this? I'm wasting my time and my talent, I'm capable of so much more'? Would you ever get the urge to actually do anything with your life if you could keep saying to yourself 'I have at least another 10,000 years, so what's ten years doing this meaningless crap'? Do you really feel that's a good thing? Subsituting quality for quantity has never worked in any situation I have ever encountered. Why would it here? Why would it make life any better?
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
But alot of the stuff you're talking about has more to do with lack of maintenance more than old age. And yes, I have visited alot of nursing homes so I know exactly what you mean. The truth is, people just don't know how to take care of themselves, or they just don't bother. I read an interesting article once about a man(a cop incidentally). The guy was incredibly muscular and unbelievably cut; he would almost put Arnold to shame. Do you know how old he was? Over 60. Over 60!!! There are people over 70 still running marathons, there are people who are over 100 years old still actively working on farms. They're all still fully functional, completely able, and still sharp and fully aware of themselves.
I know for a fact that I will never become someone trapped in a nursing home because I will never let it happen. Granted, there are unavoidable cirumstances that force people into that kind of care. Alzhiemers, dementia from repeated heart attacks, strokes or aneurysms, physical problems such as paralysis from accidents and such. But I honestly believe that alot of people that end up apparently debilitated and unable to care for themselves, are themselves the problem(note, I didn't say everybody). I am of that belief because I see it everyday in my family. In my opinion, all it takes is will power, and if you don't have enough to get up and keep yourself in shape, then it's your own fault.
Chalk me up as uncaring, cold-hearted, I don't care. I know what I've seen.
On a more philosophical note, age and it's associated change of life patterns can be good for people. It can change attitudes and it's especially good at shattering the younger generation's notions of invulnerability (disclaimer: I still suffer from the dementia myself) As one of my favorite mentors once said: About death and watching people die, well guess what? That's life isn't it. Life, death and rebirth. Every day you should be aware of the fact that either you or someone you know can die at any moment. If you can't live with the thought of losing someone, then maybe you should end your life now. That is the only way out because otherwise you will have to live with the experience of losing someone you care about. As a closing thought(god, I sound like Jerry Springer):
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
The homepage of the company building these thing is starbridgesystems.com
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Actually, it is absolutely impossible to live forever. One day you WILL die. Maybe not from old age, but the longer you live the more likely you are to die from an accident. And if you manage to escape all of those, there's still the death of the universe to deal with, so there's no winning in the end. So if you think about it, there are two choices: a) grow old and die a peaceful death, or b) try to live as long as possible and eventually die a horrible violent death. How's that for sunny news? :-)
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Of course muscles regenerate. When you work out you're tearing tissue all the time. That's part of the reason you're sore afterwards. Bulking up has to do with muscle regeneration and repair.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I was specifically referring to GPL binaries. Assuming that a CD is made of GPL software(like Debian excluding non-free), my argument also applies there.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Once you buy the binary, it's yours to do with as you please. So you can redistribute it, modify it, do whatever you like.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
No, x86 is the leading architecture because of marketing. Microsoft's and Intel's marketing, and no other reason.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
You're right. Unfortunately, that's not the way these "copy protection" measures work. They are just a big pain in the ass and restrict you from actually doing things with your computer.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Make sure you build protection into screwdrivers so you can't unscrew screws and break into houses while you're at it!
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
"...as personal computer sales are flattening, hardware makers are doing what they can to help jump-start the market for media content that might persuade consumers to buy more high-end machines."
They finished talking about how every single attempt at building in copy control for media content has failed miserably because nobody bought into the products. Then hardware makers say "computer sales are going down, so let's build in copy protection." Hello? They think copy protection is going to increase sales? Force people to buy higher end machines? Do they even realize what they're saying?
Of course, it just occured to me that perhaps this is an interesting trick. They build in copy protection for their lower end machines, and then provide high-end machines without copy-protection for much higher prices(despite the fact that it would actually cost less to leave it out). They can cite economies of scale to justify the higher price since most people wouldn't even know what they were getting into by buying a cheaper machine. Not that the hardware companies have to justify anything anyway.
In the end, I guess the only thing that matters is if they can get every single hardware maker into building these measures in. If they don't, then people will just flock to whoever is left
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
I must add to that and say that alot of the graphics used in Aqua are not vector drawings, but the Core most certainly is vector based. Unless, of course, you can prove me otherwise...
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"
Display PostScript isn't vector based the way Aqua is AFAIK(though I think it COULD be if you tried). Besides, even if it were, there are no environments using Display PostScript in such a way(which was my point). And yes, I am very familiar with GNUStep and MacOS which both used Display PostScript, but once again, not in a vector based GUI. Swing is definitely not vector based.
I think perhaps you're misunderstanding what vector based means. It's not about auto-scaling pixmaps. It's about not having pixmaps at all. All your drawing primitives and much on-screen data are defined by equations. Resizing, translating, rotating are not about matrix multiplications and manipulations ala Gimp/PhotoShop. They're all perfect operations because the transformations are not being applied to a pixmap. No need for anti-aliasing, no need for bicubic interpolation, nearest neighbour or anything like that. I know I'm not even doing it justice, so I'll provide the link to a very informative article about Aqua.
No toolkit will do that for you without expensive matrix transformations. I think if you check out the Berlin webpage under the "Screenshots" section, you may see what I mean.
-----
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them"