What is required to implement drag-to-save etc. in X is a single manager for icons, drag-n-drop and inter-object messages (so that you drag the icon from, say the title bar of the document window to save it etc. The question of UNIX authentication/permissions then arises though, so there isn't a simple option. John
Why we need desktop ENVIRONMENTS
on
The ROX Desktop
·
· Score: 1
The major problem, AISI, of the current trend in desktop environments (those that use X11 at least) is the degree of disconnection of the various different programs.
For example
The
user drags an icon from here to there -- what program handles it? With GNOME, it could be the panel, or the GMC, etc. And then what can a particular icon be dragged TO? Even more confusing is that some icons can be dragged to some places, others to others, and there is no overall policy as to how this should happen. In short, DnD should be centralised in what should be termed the UI manager -- i.e. a WM with extra bits bolted on.
Berlin can't be a replacement for X; it's not a hardware-oriented system.
At the software interface level, X is hardware agnostic -- you don't need to know about the hardware that the app appears on in order to use it (except for display depth and dimensions). Berlin just takes the high level idea through its natural course (rather than taking low level calls and sticking a networking layer in the middle of them as X does)
Only idiots compare Berlin to X,
only idiots need a GUI...etc.etc.etc.
as the systems have very little functionality in common. X knows how to talk to hardware, whereas Berlin doesn't. Berlin needs to have some combination of GGI and OpenGL.
X knows how to talk to X applications -- the rest is down to implementation (note that if a piece of software speaks the X protocol then it is an X server, if not then it isn't -- there is nothing in X itself that says that it knows how to speak to the hardware and, for example, Windows X servers only speak to Windows)
It would be vastly more sensible to compare Berlin to GTK, Qt, or FLTK, as that is where there might be properties in common.
No -- it would be more sensible to compare Berlin to a combination of X, GTK, Orbit and GNOME combined.
A replacement for X needs to have some vaguely similar degree of portability. It needs to run on many kinds of systems.
That's why the hardware requirements are left open. Thats why in their sample implementation, they intent to use OpenGL for all the low level stuff -- by the time they have something to be used by users, accellerated OpenGL will be generally available.
GGI would be the most likely candidate for this; it's not there yet.
No reason why -- that was an early aim, which they have (partially) moved away from. In any case, the main thrust is the high level interface.
A replacement for X needs to provide vaguely similar levels of network interoperability. Yes, there are users that only want to run applications on one host's console. And that's why X provides things like the SHM extension so that if everything's local, performance can be made better.
I strongly disagree. X's levels of interoperability are one of its major shortcomings. For example, why is it so difficult to, say, implement drag and drop? Why can't it easily be built in? X is low level, and anything else is a strain to implement.
But those that focus on Console! Console! Console! are ignoring that they're not the only users, they're restricting flexibility, and, more importantly, they're ignoring that network support is getting more important all the time. You see, there's this newfangled "Internet" thing...
Equally, those that think that all we need is a GUI are very much mistaken -- the GUI, OS, object systems and programming languages should be closely related (take OS/2's GUI as an example -- it is trivial to extend EVERY applications 'open' dialog in one stab)
"GnotX" won't represent a realistic alternative unless it is network-aware.
Network aware is the easy bit -- simply make a GUI IPC based, and make the IPC network transparent (Berlin's distributed OO approach gives them this bit for free:-)
And then there's the application problem. If the new system doesn't permit running the applications that we already have, then this means discarding all of the X-based software that people have been finding useful over the last dozen years.
If we thought that, we'd all be running Windows.:-)
Notably, no more KDE, no more GNOME, no more StarOffice, no more WordPerfect, no more ApplixWare, no more Netscape.
KDE is based on Qt, which is portable to systems such as Windows. Similarly for GTK and GNOME. As for applix and star, that is their problem. In any case, why not make an X server for the new GUI system -- X itself isnt -too- unportable.
Even if there was a way that "GnotX" made a GTK, and thereby GNOME, port easy, this would definitely be injurious to vendors of X software like ApplixWare and WordPerfect (that have some Motif involvement, and thus mandate having a real good X emulation).
Their problem -- what you describe is the main reason that Windows is such a shoddy product.
Then there's the BIG problem. People propose things as replacements for X that weren't truly designed as such, or that, worse still, aren't really designed at all.
Equally, people propose that X is a good idea for a GUI -- it is not.
This was quite silly; they never had a clear design, only a set of claims that amounted to "Because We're Cool Hackers, We'll Outdo X." That may represent intent; that does not represent design.
The original Berlin idea was thrown in the bin. John
Given that the current trend is for software suppliers to put dont-blame-me clauses in the contracts and license agreements -- the answer will depend upon the validity of the contracts.
John
Re:pictures and a thousand words
on
V2OS under GPL
·
· Score: 1
The.sig is a general indication of my attitude towards the mass-image approach to web design taken by many of the 'professional' web design companies (i.e. the magazine design ones, sticking magazine type stuff on the web, and not figuring that a 2min wait for a page is a problem...) John
The root issue is why the modern installers are making both a user and root account on installation. John
Re:V2 Os might not be totally crazy (size matters)
on
V2OS under GPL
·
· Score: 1
You should also consider contrasting it with the QNX RTOS microkernel, which is about the same size, but handles slightly different things. John
Re:Defense & Advertisement
on
V2OS under GPL
·
· Score: 1
... mp3 player in your car...
I suppose, but something StrongARM based such as the EMPEG would do the job better, since the processor has less cooling requirements. Also, a stripped down Linux kernel, with no hardware to detect wouldn't take much longer to boot. John
For the most part, the version numbers uniquely identify each release of the software, with some form of ordering on the numbers so that you know that one version is newer than another.
However, the orderings are a little arbitrary, (e.g. Linux 2.3.0 is in some sense older than 2.2.13...)
The GPL probably CAN be enforced. The FSF has successfully taken legal steps (though none in court as yet) to get GPL-derived software released under the GPL.
The problem of WHO WILL SUE is the one at hand. If the FSF owns the rights to the software, then THEY can sue -- else the can't.
Question: If I GPL my software, and there is a violation, can I then assign the copyright to, saw RHAT or the FSF, such that they have rights to sue the infringing party?? (I -know- that this sounds like a use-them-at-your-convenience statement, but it is an important question.)
What qualifies as a copyright infringement? If Microsoft makes EDIT.EXE more like Emacs, say with a lisp-like extension language and the same control and meta keys. They ship it in the WinNT command line, are we in sue-able territory here?
And then Apple and M$ can sue developers for making Linux more user friendly???
Only (in GPL case) cases of actual distribution of GPL-software derived software under a non-GPL license is infringement.
This approach could be used for storing various (moderated) user feedback about the monitors, along with success/failure stories about what it works well with...
Also, once we have XF86 4, we could do similar with the driver source (even having precompiled binary drivers for each processor type -- since the loading mechanism is independant of the OS...) John
It might be an idea to make a 'user' build. The last time I tried running moz, under windoze I might add, the biggest cause of lag was the debug messages being sent to the console. Wouldn't it be an idea to do a build with these disabled so that the current 'real-world-user' view of performance can be looked at? (This would also go a way to stopping all those (it's SLOW) trolls:-)
I would be interested in reasonable arguments as to why if I take a piece of clay and make a pot, I have a natural right to the pot, but if I take a pen and write a story, I don't have a natural right to the story.
If you take a pen and write a story, arguably you do have rights to the 'story' that you wrote. However, if I pick up a pen and write the same story, or write the same story into a computer, why should YOU have the rights instead of ME?
The notion of coyright is a reasonable approach to protect original authorship by saying that for a period of time after writing, YOU have rights to 'your' story regardless of who 'writes it down'. The problem is that corporations are lobbying for the time period to be made excessively long. And for the rights to do the same thing with mere ideas (as in patents). John
Anything that can be done with an ACL model can be done with a capability model. The reverse is not true.
A number of papers on the EROS page illustrate the problem with ACL's -- since a process MUST have a user ID, it isn't necessarily possible for a process to have only the permissions it needs for a particular job, and NO MORE. John
The GPL, as I understand it, requires that IF I distribute a GPL'd program to you, THEN you will have the source to it, under the terms of the GPL. (If I distribute the binary, then you also have that under the terms of the GPL.)
Slashdot Mirror
What is required to implement drag-to-save etc. in X is a single manager for icons, drag-n-drop and inter-object messages (so that you drag the icon from, say the title bar of the document window to save it etc. The question of UNIX authentication/permissions then arises though, so there isn't a simple option.
John
For example
John
The StrongARM doesn't have an FP unit...
John
John
Given that the current trend is for software suppliers to put dont-blame-me clauses in the contracts and license agreements -- the answer will depend upon the validity of the contracts.
John
The .sig is a general indication of my attitude towards the mass-image approach to web design taken by many of the 'professional' web design companies (i.e. the magazine design ones, sticking magazine type stuff on the web, and not figuring that a 2min wait for a page is a problem...)
John
The root issue is why the modern installers are making both a user and root account on installation.
John
You should also consider contrasting it with the QNX RTOS microkernel, which is about the same size, but handles slightly different things.
John
John
For the most part, the version numbers uniquely identify each release of the software, with some form of ordering on the numbers so that you know that one version is newer than another.
However, the orderings are a little arbitrary, (e.g. Linux 2.3.0 is in some sense older than 2.2.13...)
John
Where does one obtain the supermount patch?
John
The GPL probably CAN be enforced. The FSF has successfully taken legal steps (though none in court as yet) to get GPL-derived software released under the GPL.
The problem of WHO WILL SUE is the one at hand. If the FSF owns the rights to the software, then THEY can sue -- else the can't.
Question: If I GPL my software, and there is a violation, can I then assign the copyright to, saw RHAT or the FSF, such that they have rights to sue the infringing party?? (I -know- that this sounds like a use-them-at-your-convenience statement, but it is an important question.)
John
Only (in GPL case) cases of actual distribution of GPL-software derived software under a non-GPL license is infringement.
John
This approach could be used for storing various (moderated) user feedback about the monitors, along with success/failure stories about what it works well with...
Also, once we have XF86 4, we could do similar with the driver source (even having precompiled binary drivers for each processor type -- since the loading mechanism is independant of the OS...)
John
I get the feeling that the patterns are significantly harder to find than to verify.
This would make false data less of a problem ( since it would merely act like any other flooding DOS attack).
John
It might be an idea to make a 'user' build. The last time I tried running moz, under windoze I might add, the biggest cause of lag was the debug messages being sent to the console. Wouldn't it be an idea to do a build with these disabled so that the current 'real-world-user' view of performance can be looked at? (This would also go a way to stopping all those (it's SLOW) trolls :-)
John
This is precisely what the core renderer of Mozilla provides -- the whole UI is an XML application that runs under it.
John
The notion of coyright is a reasonable approach to protect original authorship by saying that for a period of time after writing, YOU have rights to 'your' story regardless of who 'writes it down'. The problem is that corporations are lobbying for the time period to be made excessively long. And for the rights to do the same thing with mere ideas (as in patents).
John
Anything that can be done with an ACL model can be done with a capability model. The reverse is not true.
A number of papers on the EROS page illustrate the problem with ACL's -- since a process MUST have a user ID, it isn't necessarily possible for a process to have only the permissions it needs for a particular job, and NO MORE.
John
Power3's are used in IBM's high end boxes.
The Qube uses MIPS
John
Anyone who requests it?
The GPL, as I understand it, requires that IF I distribute a GPL'd program to you, THEN you will have the source to it, under the terms of the GPL. (If I distribute the binary, then you also have that under the terms of the GPL.)
Can you clarify??
John
I put the response to this on another message -- basically it needs to be considered that source availability also contributed to the problem.
John
The hack was worked out because JFS had the source to hand -- that's how he was able to find the hole
What this makes obvious is two things --
The actual hole was found in the source of the ADS software -- I hope that the people writing it have taken heed of this (and fixed the hole).
John
Just mark it as Corel Linux unstable build 0.1.2/9/99.a or something.
John
Didn't he also do LyX??
John