... if I'm starting a new project, it's usually because what exisits already, whether a standard or not, just doesn't work for me. Now I may or may not incorporate standards into a project depending on what I need and whats available, but I may not.
Now I'm not working on any grand applications, and I'm not trying to solve the worlds computing problems, just mine. I suppose this could be loosly defined as an ego issue, but I assure you I don't think it's because I'm better then anyone else, it's just because I want something to work differently or work in some specific way.
I would imagine that the majority of open source projects start ou this way. That said, I think there are a number of open source projects (more and more lately) that do adheare to standards more so infact then many commercial projects, it all depends on where you look. The nice thing about the open source stuff... if you don't like it, rewrite it, or use something else, or pay someone to create what you want if you are so inclined... it's all about choice.
All the Pink Floyd stuff is more then 9.99 and album, and most albums are incompleate. It seems that any of the individual PF songs I want are the one in which you need to buy the whole album to get. I understand why 'Echos' isn't 99, but I'd rather pay like $5 for it then $11.99 for the album. Still Pink Floyd seems to be the only oddball I've found, I would assume it has something to do with licensing.
LOL... you know, when I read my above post aloud to myself I could hear the sarcasim in my voice. Guess I should pay more attention to my own advice and remember that what works in speech doesn't alway work as well in writing. Arghhh, and think I was learned wrong in skool.
Apparently the 'graphics' people in your office don't care about accurate color matching or anything like that. If so you'd need to add at least $500 worth of hardware and software and a few hours of clibration to come close to the accuracy a Mac has out of the box.
There's a hugh gap between "works" and "works well" and PC color matching incredibly sucks
BTW I use a three button scroll wheel mouse on my Mac just fine... that argument is as old, trite and wrong as can be... typical argument which just screams "I'm an Idiot"
I posted this here as a seperate post, but the Second Edition of this book (PHP and MySQL Web Development) will be showing up in bookstores around mid-February.
The 2nd edition has been updated to include PHP stuff that was unavailable or unclear in the first edition (register_globals, PEAR, XML,...)
FYI a new Edition of this book which has been updated to include PEAR stuff, XML stuff, and various minor fixes will be in a book store near you around mid-February.
Safari is a cooperative venture between O'Reilly and Pearson (which includes Sams). Safari really isn't O'Reilly's alone (though they do seem to do a better job of advertising it), and this book is available there.
Essentially you are correct. The thing is is that the file generally passes between the author and production *at least* twice and things will get lost in translation back and fourth.
Also, fyi, a book is usually submitted as seperate files for each element (chapter, appendix, etc...) so one would rarely have a 400 page document (if so we've got bigger problems then the format:P ).
Now, *if* Microsoft actually delivers what they promise in Office 11 (full XML compatibility) then that would solve many of these problems (since ideally an author could submit a docbook file and an editor could open it in Word without any added complexity) We'll see.
The reason why it's hard to convert from something else to.doc is that most of the upfront stuff is done in MS Word. This is beginning to change some, but it's still not feasible to do it the other way. For example, you can't always expect a copy editor with a strong english background to be an expert at dealing with various file formats, and technologies needed to accomidate them (i.e. Word tracks revisions, not too many English majors can use CVS to track docbook files.) Exceptions are made, and of course we've allowed authors to use StarOffice/OpenOffice for a while too.
As for printing existing OpenSourced books... That's difficult due to the licensing and copyright things. Keep in mind that Publishiers *are* in business to make money and there *very* big risks in publishing some OpenSourced content. If however there's money to be made, or at least some evidence that it wouldn't be a money loosing proposition, Then it's certainly possible.
Why in the world does it matter? Wouldn't the world be a better place if Microsoft OpenSourced it's code? or would you complain and say."Why do this with Microsoft? shouldn't you do it with some other company instead?"... I mean what's the logic there?
BTW I work in publishing (Pearson Yes/ Prentice No) and most publishers will allow an author to publish the book freely/electronically *if* the author asks up front to do this.
There definately seem to be some improvements for the developers: API's, Frameworks, Libraries, Methodologies, Languages, etc... All help the developer build apps faster and easier.
For the end user however things have gotten worse, since much of the above mentioned things are flawed and unoptimized (note: this is a generalization, there *are* exceptions). Eventually most of the flaws get worked out (except there are a few cascading bugs which will likely remain), however efficency sucks, and rather then optimize developers rely on faster computers to make up for the lack of optimization. I'm not even talking bloat here... just pure execution. WP 5.0 was rediculasly more effcient then Word XP and did everything I need in a Word processor today.
For the future things should improve. People have stopped the silly upgrade cycle of computers, and more and more development is moving towards embedded devices where is becomes a competitive advantage to go back and focus on optimizing code.
First, Megahertz Myth aside, an iBook running at full speed would still likely be slower the a P4-2Ghz system running at half speed... Remember iBooks still us G3 processors. (Now iBooks have up to 6 hour battery life, run a better OS, and are just cool... but from a performance standpoint...)
Second, Macs can also run with reduced processor performace to add battery life... It's an option in the OS X 'Energy Saver' control panel. No idea if it's default or not.
And if Microsoft did this, how loud would Slashdot scream?
Let's see... if Microsoft switched to a FreeBSD based OS and discontinued thier current codebase...
Slashdot may scream, but I doubt it would be screams of anger (Well except for those who whine that it's not based on Linux).
Re:The best printer on Earth (that we can afford)
on
Printer Makers' Ploys
·
· Score: 1
I've got a HL-1240, and it is great. It's can emulate an HP LaserJet 4 (if you are setting up printing from Linux), there are better drivers that can be compiled into ghostscript (in the contrib source directory) if you want more features.
Currently have the printer plugged into an old laptop running RedHat 7.3 with CUPS and can print to it using IPP from all the Mac OS X / Windows XP and of course Linux computers I have around here. Native support from Brother would be helpful though (at least some specific CUPS drivers).
It's the polygraph and the fact you're disqualified for...ummm... "experimenting" with excessive chemical substances in the past that get's me (or should I say wouldn't get me... a job with the FBI)
I think it's cool what this ISP is doing, I hope they're successful, but the bigger question is what all the other people are doing. A small ISP isn't going to change anything alone.
The thing is we all need to help fight the RIAA, and the laws it's lobbying for, and the best (legal) way to do this is to just stop giving them money. Don't buy there product, and encourage others not to also. If nobody buys there product, they have no money to lobby. If they have no money to lobby then their silly laws won't get passed.
PolySci 101: The intent of political leaders in the U.S.A. is to grab as much power and money as possible, while maintaining just enough credibility with the public to get re-elected. So a good (read 'effective') politician wounldn't pass a law like the CDMA or this new fascist crap being pushed by the RIAA if they weren't getting something. The sad fact is, voteing with your money is much more effective then voteing in elections.
So fight on!!! There's a lot of excellent, often better music out there *not* published by the big music industry. Give these people you money, not those that want to take your money and screw you with it.
Re:Breaking interoperability... again???
on
GCC 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
True... and Apple actually mentioned that developers shouldn't use C++ (but then played that down when the C++ Developers started complaining). Still there's quite a bit of Darwin level stuff that uses C++.
Re:Breaking interoperability... again???
on
GCC 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
And how much stuff was actually compiled with GCC 3.11?
Hmmm... Just Mac OSX 10.2... but that's not that much is it?!
(Please read above with as much sarcasm as possible... thanks you!)
How exactly does Linux give you more choices? Almost everything you can run on Linux (PPC anyway) will compile and run fine on OS X. You can even run X instead on Aqua if you'd like, and then switch into Aqua if you want to use Photoshop or Word or whatever I just don't see the sense in this.
The only thing I could think of as to why you'd run Linux on a Mac is either a) you have an older Mac that won't run OS X, or b) You think it make's you special to tell all your friends you run Linux on your Mac (BTW it doesn't).
This could be very easy for Apple to do (very easy being relative;)
First, of all NextStep ran on top of Windows, so essentially the Cocoa Libraries are already for Intel
Second, Darwin already runs on Intel Hardware (but still needs some work)
Now, once Darwin for Intel is in good shape, Apple Updates the Intel NextStep Libraries and voila... OS X for Intel
As for porting apps... Any Cocoa Apps are golden... recompile and ship (unless there are specific hardware/driver issues). Carbon apps however are SOL, but that could be why Apple has done everything possible to convince developers to use Cocoa. (This has happened throughout Apples existance... they tell developers what they should do, developers ignore them, and when there apps suddenly don't work they blame Apple).
Slashdot Mirror
... if I'm starting a new project, it's usually because what exisits already, whether a standard or not, just doesn't work for me. Now I may or may not incorporate standards into a project depending on what I need and whats available, but I may not.
Now I'm not working on any grand applications, and I'm not trying to solve the worlds computing problems, just mine. I suppose this could be loosly defined as an ego issue, but I assure you I don't think it's because I'm better then anyone else, it's just because I want something to work differently or work in some specific way.
I would imagine that the majority of open source projects start ou this way. That said, I think there are a number of open source projects (more and more lately) that do adheare to standards more so infact then many commercial projects, it all depends on where you look. The nice thing about the open source stuff... if you don't like it, rewrite it, or use something else, or pay someone to create what you want if you are so inclined... it's all about choice.
All the Pink Floyd stuff is more then 9.99 and album, and most albums are incompleate. It seems that any of the individual PF songs I want are the one in which you need to buy the whole album to get.
I understand why 'Echos' isn't 99, but I'd rather pay like $5 for it then $11.99 for the album.
Still Pink Floyd seems to be the only oddball I've found, I would assume it has something to do with licensing.
LOL... you know, when I read my above post aloud to myself I could hear the sarcasim in my voice. Guess I should pay more attention to my own advice and remember that what works in speech doesn't alway work as well in writing. Arghhh, and think I was learned wrong in skool.
1. Are you sueing Apple too?
2. Is this covered under APP (Apple protenction plan)?
Apparently the 'graphics' people in your office don't care about accurate color matching or anything like that. If so you'd need to add at least $500 worth of hardware and software and a few hours of clibration to come close to the accuracy a Mac has out of the box.
There's a hugh gap between "works" and "works well" and PC color matching incredibly sucks
BTW I use a three button scroll wheel mouse on my Mac just fine... that argument is as old, trite and wrong as can be... typical argument which just screams "I'm an Idiot"
I posted this here as a seperate post, but the Second Edition of this book (PHP and MySQL Web Development) will be showing up in bookstores around mid-February.
...)
The 2nd edition has been updated to include PHP stuff that was unavailable or unclear in the first edition (register_globals, PEAR, XML,
FYI a new Edition of this book which has been updated to include PEAR stuff, XML stuff, and various minor fixes will be in a book store near you around mid-February.
Safari is a cooperative venture between O'Reilly and Pearson (which includes Sams). Safari really isn't O'Reilly's alone (though they do seem to do a better job of advertising it), and this book is available there.
Essentially you are correct. The thing is is that the file generally passes between the author and production *at least* twice and things will get lost in translation back and fourth.
:P ).
Also, fyi, a book is usually submitted as seperate files for each element (chapter, appendix, etc...) so one would rarely have a 400 page document (if so we've got bigger problems then the format
Now, *if* Microsoft actually delivers what they promise in Office 11 (full XML compatibility) then that would solve many of these problems (since ideally an author could submit a docbook file and an editor could open it in Word without any added complexity) We'll see.
The reason why it's hard to convert from something else to .doc is that most of the upfront stuff is done in MS Word. This is beginning to change some, but it's still not feasible to do it the other way. For example, you can't always expect a copy editor with a strong english background to be an expert at dealing with various file formats, and technologies needed to accomidate them (i.e. Word tracks revisions, not too many English majors can use CVS to track docbook files.) Exceptions are made, and of course we've allowed authors to use StarOffice/OpenOffice for a while too.
As for printing existing OpenSourced books... That's difficult due to the licensing and copyright things. Keep in mind that Publishiers *are* in business to make money and there *very* big risks in publishing some OpenSourced content. If however there's money to be made, or at least some evidence that it wouldn't be a money loosing proposition, Then it's certainly possible.
Why in the world does it matter? Wouldn't the world be a better place if Microsoft OpenSourced it's code? or would you complain and say."Why do this with Microsoft? shouldn't you do it with some other company instead?"... I mean what's the logic there?
BTW I work in publishing (Pearson Yes/ Prentice No) and most publishers will allow an author to publish the book freely/electronically *if* the author asks up front to do this.
--Happy New Year!
There definately seem to be some improvements for the developers: API's, Frameworks, Libraries, Methodologies, Languages, etc... All help the developer build apps faster and easier.
For the end user however things have gotten worse, since much of the above mentioned things are flawed and unoptimized (note: this is a generalization, there *are* exceptions). Eventually most of the flaws get worked out (except there are a few cascading bugs which will likely remain), however efficency sucks, and rather then optimize developers rely on faster computers to make up for the lack of optimization. I'm not even talking bloat here... just pure execution. WP 5.0 was rediculasly more effcient then Word XP and did everything I need in a Word processor today.
For the future things should improve. People have stopped the silly upgrade cycle of computers, and more and more development is moving towards embedded devices where is becomes a competitive advantage to go back and focus on optimizing code.
Two things...
First, Megahertz Myth aside, an iBook running at full speed would still likely be slower the a P4-2Ghz system running at half speed... Remember iBooks still us G3 processors. (Now iBooks have up to 6 hour battery life, run a better OS, and are just cool... but from a performance standpoint...)
Second, Macs can also run with reduced processor performace to add battery life... It's an option in the OS X 'Energy Saver' control panel. No idea if it's default or not.
FYI... An updated Jaguar version of "Mac OS X Unleashed" should be on shelves by year end.
will be coming out on IMAX about the same time too. Could be a good year end for IMAX.
Of course all the new hardware will be Intel based... really I read it on slashdot!
Let's see... if Microsoft switched to a FreeBSD based OS and discontinued thier current codebase...
Slashdot may scream, but I doubt it would be screams of anger (Well except for those who whine that it's not based on Linux).
I've got a HL-1240, and it is great. It's can emulate an HP LaserJet 4 (if you are setting up printing from Linux), there are better drivers that can be compiled into ghostscript (in the contrib source directory) if you want more features.
Currently have the printer plugged into an old laptop running RedHat 7.3 with CUPS and can print to it using IPP from all the Mac OS X / Windows XP and of course Linux computers I have around here. Native support from Brother would be helpful though (at least some specific CUPS drivers).
Highly recommended.
It's the polygraph and the fact you're disqualified for ...ummm... "experimenting" with excessive chemical substances in the past that get's me (or should I say wouldn't get me... a job with the FBI)
I think it's cool what this ISP is doing, I hope they're successful, but the bigger question is what all the other people are doing. A small ISP isn't going to change anything alone.
The thing is we all need to help fight the RIAA, and the laws it's lobbying for, and the best (legal) way to do this is to just stop giving them money. Don't buy there product, and encourage others not to also. If nobody buys there product, they have no money to lobby. If they have no money to lobby then their silly laws won't get passed.
PolySci 101: The intent of political leaders in the U.S.A. is to grab as much power and money as possible, while maintaining just enough credibility with the public to get re-elected. So a good (read 'effective') politician wounldn't pass a law like the CDMA or this new fascist crap being pushed by the RIAA if they weren't getting something. The sad fact is, voteing with your money is much more effective then voteing in elections.
So fight on!!! There's a lot of excellent, often better music out there *not* published by the big music industry. Give these people you money, not those that want to take your money and screw you with it.
True... and Apple actually mentioned that developers shouldn't use C++ (but then played that down when the C++ Developers started complaining). Still there's quite a bit of Darwin level stuff that uses C++.
Hmmm... Just Mac OSX 10.2... but that's not that much is it?!
(Please read above with as much sarcasm as possible... thanks you!)
Wow... did you really want to open that can o' worms? Let the battle begin...
How exactly does Linux give you more choices? Almost everything you can run on Linux (PPC anyway) will compile and run fine on OS X. You can even run X instead on Aqua if you'd like, and then switch into Aqua if you want to use Photoshop or Word or whatever
I just don't see the sense in this.
The only thing I could think of as to why you'd run Linux on a Mac is either a) you have an older Mac that won't run OS X, or b) You think it make's you special to tell all your friends you run Linux on your Mac (BTW it doesn't).
This could be very easy for Apple to do (very easy being relative ;)
First, of all NextStep ran on top of Windows, so essentially the Cocoa Libraries are already for Intel
Second, Darwin already runs on Intel Hardware (but still needs some work)
Now, once Darwin for Intel is in good shape, Apple Updates the Intel NextStep Libraries and voila... OS X for Intel
As for porting apps... Any Cocoa Apps are golden... recompile and ship (unless there are specific hardware/driver issues). Carbon apps however are SOL, but that could be why Apple has done everything possible to convince developers to use Cocoa. (This has happened throughout Apples existance... they tell developers what they should do, developers ignore them, and when there apps suddenly don't work they blame Apple).