My only gripe with spellcheck in FF is that it just tells you the word is wrong. But often that's how I think to spell the word so... it doesn't really help.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by French Toast on Sun Jan 21st at 4:33am 2007
French Toast
member
3043 posts
300 snarkmarks
Registered: Jan 16th 2005
Location: Canada
Occupation: Kicking Ass
Posted by French Toast on Sun Jan 21st at 4:33am 2007
French Toast
member
3043 posts
300 snarkmarks
Registered: Jan 16th 2005
Location: Canada
Occupation: Kicking Ass
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Crono on Sun Jan 21st at 4:40am 2007
Posted by Crono on Sun Jan 21st at 4:40am 2007
Binary without interpretation doesn't mean anything. It's gibberish.
I frequently get annoyed with the FF spell checker. The word could be one vowel off and it wont suggest what word I was typing. The heuristics they use, as in most spell checkers, are very outdated and need to be extended upon.
I frequently get annoyed with the FF spell checker. The word could be one vowel off and it wont suggest what word I was typing. The heuristics they use, as in most spell checkers, are very outdated and need to be extended upon.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Jan 21st at 9:50am 2007
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Jan 21st at 9:50am 2007
Yeah its funny. Google is one of the most known of websites and IE Spell doesn't recognize it as a word. 
As for the spellchecker in FF, it does put a red line under the word but you also need to click the little "ABC" in the top center of the toolbar to get it to suggest. It doesn't always find a word, but that's how you get it to suggest one.
As for the spellchecker in FF, it does put a red line under the word but you also need to click the little "ABC" in the top center of the toolbar to get it to suggest. It doesn't always find a word, but that's how you get it to suggest one.
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Rumple on Sun Jan 21st at 11:58am 2007
Rumple
member
518 posts
72 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 22nd 2001
Location: NSW, Australia
Occupation: Web Dev
Posted by Rumple on Sun Jan 21st at 11:58am 2007
You right click on an incorrect word to see its suggestions in Fx.
Rumple
member
518 posts
72 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 22nd 2001
Location: NSW, Australia
Occupation: Web Dev
<A HREF="http://rumple.biz" TARGET="_blank">SourDough2.0</A> - With Strawberry Jam
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by reaper47 on Sun Jan 21st at 12:16pm 2007
Posted by reaper47 on Sun Jan 21st at 12:16pm 2007
yup, it works like Word's spell-checker for me. Like Rumple said.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by fishy on Sun Jan 21st at 1:47pm 2007
Posted by fishy on Sun Jan 21st at 1:47pm 2007
i don't nead a spell checker.
i eat paint
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Jan 21st at 2:05pm 2007
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Jan 21st at 2:05pm 2007
? quoting reaper47
yup, it works like Word's spell-checker for me. Like Rumple said.
*ahem*
It also works like I said. 
I do occasionally post inaccuracies, but not this time.
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by reaper47 on Sun Jan 21st at 2:41pm 2007
Posted by reaper47 on Sun Jan 21st at 2:41pm 2007
But he had a screenshot!
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Jan 21st at 2:57pm 2007
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Jan 21st at 2:57pm 2007
? quoting reaper47
But he had a screenshot!
Well, if that's what it takes: 
/giggles hysterically
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by reaper47 on Sun Jan 21st at 4:01pm 2007
![<img src=]()
" SRC="images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif">
btw, Crono: I believe I understand most of the things you explained. What I meant isn't ease of use in general, or how fast and efficient an interface is once you get used to it. No, not even how easy it is to learn. I mean that the choices are more intimidating to most people than helpful. It takes a lot of time and insider knowledge to feel comfortable with all the different aspects of using Linux.
For example, when I want to install a new driver in Windows (blah example, I know), someone can tell me in an IM program to click on "start" in the lower left corner then click "control panel" and then I find a button labeled "hardware" in the upper right corner that has an icon shaped like a wrench (I made up everything after "control panel"...). It makes me feel save if I think I can or could do that and pretty much everyone would understand. With Linux you can probably customize your OS and choose from 20 different interfaces and change everything in detail. But that comes at the cost of not having a standard, a complete, identical standard for all Linux users there are.
If there'd be only one (and I don't mean trashing the others, I mean picking a single one everyone can relate to as the standard) and not two or one and a half interfaces then Linux could unite to a more consistent product that gets recognized easier by the majority of casual users who are likely to be overcharged with actually choosing the right Linux for them in the first place.
Please don't think of people like me, who aren't fully convinced to run Linux yet as ignorant. If it's nothing else then it's a time issue. I used to build my PCs by myself. I decided to buy fully assembled systems in the future (with the exception of graphics cards or RAM updates) because I don't have the time and enthusiasm any more to choose and mount every single part.
Maybe there are a few compatibility issues to be solved first.![<img src=]()
" SRC="images/smiles/sad.gif"> But the day a single version of Linux solidifies as the one and only choice for newcomers it will probably start becoming a serious competition to Windows for casual users. It's not efficiency or sympathy, it's plain marketing. Add a price minus to Laptops and PCs at the malls and a bit of DRM controversy with Vista and we have a nice OS revolution.
I'd be looking forward to that.
Posted by reaper47 on Sun Jan 21st at 4:01pm 2007
btw, Crono: I believe I understand most of the things you explained. What I meant isn't ease of use in general, or how fast and efficient an interface is once you get used to it. No, not even how easy it is to learn. I mean that the choices are more intimidating to most people than helpful. It takes a lot of time and insider knowledge to feel comfortable with all the different aspects of using Linux.
For example, when I want to install a new driver in Windows (blah example, I know), someone can tell me in an IM program to click on "start" in the lower left corner then click "control panel" and then I find a button labeled "hardware" in the upper right corner that has an icon shaped like a wrench (I made up everything after "control panel"...). It makes me feel save if I think I can or could do that and pretty much everyone would understand. With Linux you can probably customize your OS and choose from 20 different interfaces and change everything in detail. But that comes at the cost of not having a standard, a complete, identical standard for all Linux users there are.
If there'd be only one (and I don't mean trashing the others, I mean picking a single one everyone can relate to as the standard) and not two or one and a half interfaces then Linux could unite to a more consistent product that gets recognized easier by the majority of casual users who are likely to be overcharged with actually choosing the right Linux for them in the first place.
Please don't think of people like me, who aren't fully convinced to run Linux yet as ignorant. If it's nothing else then it's a time issue. I used to build my PCs by myself. I decided to buy fully assembled systems in the future (with the exception of graphics cards or RAM updates) because I don't have the time and enthusiasm any more to choose and mount every single part.
Maybe there are a few compatibility issues to be solved first.
I'd be looking forward to that.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by RedWood on Sun Jan 21st at 8:47pm 2007
Posted by RedWood on Sun Jan 21st at 8:47pm 2007
In my experience, I know more about computers then the average person. The reason I'd be scared to switch to a different OS (even though i hate Microsoft) is because if i screw up installing it or it doesn't work for some other reason, I have no idea how to wipe or reboot a hard drive.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Crono on Sun Jan 21st at 9:26pm 2007
Posted by Crono on Sun Jan 21st at 9:26pm 2007
This is ridiculous.
How about you let this go? You have shallow concerns which would be addressed if you used any of the distributions I mentioned (amongst many others).
I'm not pushing Linux, I'm running a Windows machine right now, I hate it, but it's sort of mandatory for games. There are reason to own one. But, if what you do is outside that realm ... there's no technical reason why you should use Windows over many Linux distributions. (Besides the fact that Linux distributions only might be as high as $80, but many are $0).
I mean ... there's just so many things wrong with your line of thinking. If you really want to learn about it and are interested in it, just f**king try it.
This is like a new console came out and everyone's interested in it, but refuses to try it and just scrutinizes everything it does ... even though you've never seen it in action. It's biased and ignorant and I don't think not wanting to switch or thinking it's daunting or intimidating is ignorant by any means. However, being firmly vigilant of false pretenses is.
RedWood, you wouldn't wipe the hard drive ... as for installing, distributions like Xandros understand you don't care about how it works, just that it does (as does Linspire, and even some versions of SuSE and Fedora Core) they install in as little as 4 clicks. But it still retains the option of installing extra packages.
There's this shadow of Windows that's really looming over all of Operating Systems. People seem to think certain things Windows does is how it works everywhere else or that it's the best option ... or even good. There's many things that are just choices someone made, they're not set in stone or anything like that (like separating add/remove hardware, software, and the device manager. In many linux distributions these are in the same application.)
Just look at CNR with Linspire, it's something that's so stupid easy to use, it's very similar to something like, Xbox Live Marketplace.
People seem to think the issue is ease of use, or even compatibility when it isn't. It's people in general refusal to adapt. When something is introduced to them, they don't want it to change ... ever. (Probably why cars are the way they are today, ancient)
How about you let this go? You have shallow concerns which would be addressed if you used any of the distributions I mentioned (amongst many others).
I'm not pushing Linux, I'm running a Windows machine right now, I hate it, but it's sort of mandatory for games. There are reason to own one. But, if what you do is outside that realm ... there's no technical reason why you should use Windows over many Linux distributions. (Besides the fact that Linux distributions only might be as high as $80, but many are $0).
I mean ... there's just so many things wrong with your line of thinking. If you really want to learn about it and are interested in it, just f**king try it.
This is like a new console came out and everyone's interested in it, but refuses to try it and just scrutinizes everything it does ... even though you've never seen it in action. It's biased and ignorant and I don't think not wanting to switch or thinking it's daunting or intimidating is ignorant by any means. However, being firmly vigilant of false pretenses is.
RedWood, you wouldn't wipe the hard drive ... as for installing, distributions like Xandros understand you don't care about how it works, just that it does (as does Linspire, and even some versions of SuSE and Fedora Core) they install in as little as 4 clicks. But it still retains the option of installing extra packages.
There's this shadow of Windows that's really looming over all of Operating Systems. People seem to think certain things Windows does is how it works everywhere else or that it's the best option ... or even good. There's many things that are just choices someone made, they're not set in stone or anything like that (like separating add/remove hardware, software, and the device manager. In many linux distributions these are in the same application.)
Just look at CNR with Linspire, it's something that's so stupid easy to use, it's very similar to something like, Xbox Live Marketplace.
People seem to think the issue is ease of use, or even compatibility when it isn't. It's people in general refusal to adapt. When something is introduced to them, they don't want it to change ... ever. (Probably why cars are the way they are today, ancient)
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Gwil on Mon Jan 22nd at 12:02am 2007
Gwil
super admin
2864 posts
293 snarkmarks
Registered: Oct 13th 2001
Location: Derbyshire, UK
Occupation: Student
Posted by Gwil on Mon Jan 22nd at 12:02am 2007
Linux is always free!
Gwil
super admin
2864 posts
293 snarkmarks
Registered: Oct 13th 2001
Location: Derbyshire, UK
Occupation: Student
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by reaper47 on Mon Jan 22nd at 1:05am 2007
Posted by reaper47 on Mon Jan 22nd at 1:05am 2007
Alright, it seems you're much more upset about this, Crono, than I would have expected in anyway. Something went wrong with what I've written. I think it's because it sounds very arrogant to talk so much about Linux while never even having used it. I made a mistake there. Sorry.
What's important to me now is to make clear that I wasn't really talking about Linux (which I don't know anything about). I was talking about a true competition to Microsoft Windows on the OS software sector as a global phenomenon. There is none. A buggy, unsecure system, packed with anti-user software clearly produced by a monopoly and no real competition anywhere. Linux is just a name I heard often when it comes to this discussion. And I've been using it thoughtlessly as a placeholder for "alternative, open OS that competes with Windows". Instead of Linux I will from now on use "Doors", a fictional OS not very different from Linux that is a clear alternative to "Windows".
I'm just asking: Why the lack of popularity? And how could this be changed?
I could start using Doors (and chances are I will sometime soon) but that doesn't change the fact that there is an overwhelming majority of casual users that do not even consider switching to it. I could tell them all how great Doors is and they still wouldn't change. As a result the Adobe suite will not be programmed to work on Doors. There aren?t enough potential users for this to be profitable. Gimp is nice but it has major usability problems and I doubt you can ever get the workflow of a professional niche-product like InDesign or Illustrator without a big, specialized company. And the Adobe programs are the only reason I and many others are not using Doors for work. It?s a devilish cycle:
To get Adobe, Valve and other major companies to produce versions of their software that work on Doors, Doors needs to be attractive to a huge user-base. In order to be attractive to a huge user-base, Doors has to support major titles like those of Adobe and Valve.
For a long time the Internet Explorer was pretty much everything there was as a standard for web-browsers. There have been many alternatives, much better alternatives also. I've been an avid Opera user for a long time. But I couldn't see how any browser could ever scratch the 90%+ dominance of IE.
Then Firefox came along. People who I thought didn't even know the difference between the words "internet browser" and "Internet Explorer" told me how happy they are with Firefox now. Suddenly Firefox gained a dominance around 30% (more in many countries) and became a true competition to IE. It was very exciting to watch, even for someone who doesn't know much about global software markets.
So what I did the last few posts was trying to apply the tricks FF used to gain its popularity among web browsers and apply it to operating systems and a fictional "Doors". More as a thought experiment than anything else.
I doubt FF was so revolutionary, technology-wise. There've been good browsers before (its just a version of Mozilla), many of the features were not new and aren't even used by casual surfers. There also were some incompatibility issues at first. But it won over the hearts of hundereds of millions of users, worldwide. I'd love to see that with Doors. It's just a very interesting thought I enjoy thinking. And I think it means that a single, compact OS release that stands out (and up) from the rest is necessary for a revolution on the OS software market. Just like it was necessary for web browsers.
It's nothing but an overly optimistic idea. Call these ideas naive or flawed, but please don't call them "shallow concerns". This has nothing to do with me trying out Linux or not. Only with it becoming a serious competition to Windows.
PS: It seems like the next step in post-length would be 2 full pages so I'll try and stop now![<img src=]()
" SRC="images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif">
What's important to me now is to make clear that I wasn't really talking about Linux (which I don't know anything about). I was talking about a true competition to Microsoft Windows on the OS software sector as a global phenomenon. There is none. A buggy, unsecure system, packed with anti-user software clearly produced by a monopoly and no real competition anywhere. Linux is just a name I heard often when it comes to this discussion. And I've been using it thoughtlessly as a placeholder for "alternative, open OS that competes with Windows". Instead of Linux I will from now on use "Doors", a fictional OS not very different from Linux that is a clear alternative to "Windows".
I'm just asking: Why the lack of popularity? And how could this be changed?
I could start using Doors (and chances are I will sometime soon) but that doesn't change the fact that there is an overwhelming majority of casual users that do not even consider switching to it. I could tell them all how great Doors is and they still wouldn't change. As a result the Adobe suite will not be programmed to work on Doors. There aren?t enough potential users for this to be profitable. Gimp is nice but it has major usability problems and I doubt you can ever get the workflow of a professional niche-product like InDesign or Illustrator without a big, specialized company. And the Adobe programs are the only reason I and many others are not using Doors for work. It?s a devilish cycle:
To get Adobe, Valve and other major companies to produce versions of their software that work on Doors, Doors needs to be attractive to a huge user-base. In order to be attractive to a huge user-base, Doors has to support major titles like those of Adobe and Valve.
For a long time the Internet Explorer was pretty much everything there was as a standard for web-browsers. There have been many alternatives, much better alternatives also. I've been an avid Opera user for a long time. But I couldn't see how any browser could ever scratch the 90%+ dominance of IE.
Then Firefox came along. People who I thought didn't even know the difference between the words "internet browser" and "Internet Explorer" told me how happy they are with Firefox now. Suddenly Firefox gained a dominance around 30% (more in many countries) and became a true competition to IE. It was very exciting to watch, even for someone who doesn't know much about global software markets.
So what I did the last few posts was trying to apply the tricks FF used to gain its popularity among web browsers and apply it to operating systems and a fictional "Doors". More as a thought experiment than anything else.
I doubt FF was so revolutionary, technology-wise. There've been good browsers before (its just a version of Mozilla), many of the features were not new and aren't even used by casual surfers. There also were some incompatibility issues at first. But it won over the hearts of hundereds of millions of users, worldwide. I'd love to see that with Doors. It's just a very interesting thought I enjoy thinking. And I think it means that a single, compact OS release that stands out (and up) from the rest is necessary for a revolution on the OS software market. Just like it was necessary for web browsers.
It's nothing but an overly optimistic idea. Call these ideas naive or flawed, but please don't call them "shallow concerns". This has nothing to do with me trying out Linux or not. Only with it becoming a serious competition to Windows.
PS: It seems like the next step in post-length would be 2 full pages so I'll try and stop now
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by fishy on Mon Jan 22nd at 2:33am 2007
Posted by fishy on Mon Jan 22nd at 2:33am 2007
? quoting Gwil
Linux is always free!
can't you charge for compiled stuff, as long as the source is free?
i eat paint
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Crono on Mon Jan 22nd at 2:40am 2007
Posted by Crono on Mon Jan 22nd at 2:40am 2007
See, this is a completely different discussion.
What you were saying earlier was, "change Linux", now what you're saying (which is what I was saying you should be thinking about) was that you should BUILD on Linux and make your own OS (the you is not directed).
The problem with the firefox analogy is 1) it didn't come out of nowhere, it's roots go further back than Internet Explorer and 2) the web has a standard that everyone needs to try to follow at the least. So there's already a generic ground that levels the playing field, anyone can make a browser that will interpret web pages, the standard explains how to do this.
Games and applications, however, are very different. For games, there's two blaring, enormous, "elephants in the room", if you will.
1) Direct X: The direct X API is THE reason why "big name" games don't run on Linux. MS has the bucks, and if game developers want to sell anything, you have to sell it to people who will at least pay for your product (not something most Linux-fan boys will do).
2) Windows APIs: How do you even install some of these games? Install Sheild doesn't exactly have ties to a non-Windows platform.
The solution, of course, is simple (as in we know what needs to happen), but difficult to actually do ... legally.
The larger, overall, issue is this: the law. Microsoft patents anything and everything they get their hands on, they also have a legion of lawyers looking for anything near grounds for a lawsuit.
So, you have to be careful when trying to create compatibility, because MS works around the clock to stop this so they keep control over whatever field. This is the way they run their business. The very best thing you could ever get from them is an offer to buy all licenses and rights to the product you're developing.
If want to 'take them out' or at the least, knock them down a notch, you must support their 1st party applications and do it better. To do that, you need to know how their stuff works. There's one way to do that: reverse engineering. Observation is the more "untouchable" type of RE, but also the slower. Reverse Engineering is perfectly legal as long as you don't use any of their code, also, and doing that is called white room reverse engineering (or white box, I don't remember which) anyway, the point is, if you don't use their code, they can't sue you because you didn't take any of their product and sell it, you just made a product that does the same overall thing.
This is what I've thought about doing, and I'm not sure why people haven't done this, my only guess is that most people who work in the field aren't exactly ... on top of things like theoretical or logic oriented computer science work and generally the people who are, are very busy with things that interest them, namely new stuff. So, my idea would be to take the DirectX API, study all the header files (so you have the names and inputs you need, this is mandatory and if a judge allows you to be sued over this you can appeal, because it's just silly, you're trying to make something compatible, there's realistic way to do it otherwise. You reverse engineer the API and develop abstractions of the functionalities.
By doing that, you remove any chance of MS code being used in your product. In fact, once you do that algorithmic abstraction ... you can make it run better. The only thing that matters is that the programs calling those functions get what they need and get it in the manner they expect.
By doing that, you would support 100% applications developed with DX API, and better yet, there is absolutely no emulation happening.
The next problem is that you need to do the same thing to some Windows APIs.
But that is all very doable. From that, you could support these things, but also just have the DX API functions be aliases for your real suite. And in that, you can develop new features for and try to lobby developers over. I would imagine that creating a faster, more cutting edge gaming platform than Windows would win developers with ease. You can support whatever, and charge the price you want while delivering exactly what most every game enthusiast wants: no more ms hassle and faster performance from existing hardware. If you tossed in some features like IMing in any game over any existing network as well as integrated email ... which can all be accessed while in a game ... you'd have a very powerful tool and it'd do exactly what you're talking about.
HOWEVER, for an office environment or something like that ... that already exists. I've mentioned them several times in this thread already as well.
That's sort of random thoughts all thrown together, but you get what I'm saying.
The concerns you addressed before were for existing Window Managers and what I was getting at is that all of those things are independent of the operating system it self. I know that's sort of confusing if you've only used Windows ... but they should be seperate.
What you were saying earlier was, "change Linux", now what you're saying (which is what I was saying you should be thinking about) was that you should BUILD on Linux and make your own OS (the you is not directed).
The problem with the firefox analogy is 1) it didn't come out of nowhere, it's roots go further back than Internet Explorer and 2) the web has a standard that everyone needs to try to follow at the least. So there's already a generic ground that levels the playing field, anyone can make a browser that will interpret web pages, the standard explains how to do this.
Games and applications, however, are very different. For games, there's two blaring, enormous, "elephants in the room", if you will.
1) Direct X: The direct X API is THE reason why "big name" games don't run on Linux. MS has the bucks, and if game developers want to sell anything, you have to sell it to people who will at least pay for your product (not something most Linux-fan boys will do).
2) Windows APIs: How do you even install some of these games? Install Sheild doesn't exactly have ties to a non-Windows platform.
The solution, of course, is simple (as in we know what needs to happen), but difficult to actually do ... legally.
The larger, overall, issue is this: the law. Microsoft patents anything and everything they get their hands on, they also have a legion of lawyers looking for anything near grounds for a lawsuit.
So, you have to be careful when trying to create compatibility, because MS works around the clock to stop this so they keep control over whatever field. This is the way they run their business. The very best thing you could ever get from them is an offer to buy all licenses and rights to the product you're developing.
If want to 'take them out' or at the least, knock them down a notch, you must support their 1st party applications and do it better. To do that, you need to know how their stuff works. There's one way to do that: reverse engineering. Observation is the more "untouchable" type of RE, but also the slower. Reverse Engineering is perfectly legal as long as you don't use any of their code, also, and doing that is called white room reverse engineering (or white box, I don't remember which) anyway, the point is, if you don't use their code, they can't sue you because you didn't take any of their product and sell it, you just made a product that does the same overall thing.
This is what I've thought about doing, and I'm not sure why people haven't done this, my only guess is that most people who work in the field aren't exactly ... on top of things like theoretical or logic oriented computer science work and generally the people who are, are very busy with things that interest them, namely new stuff. So, my idea would be to take the DirectX API, study all the header files (so you have the names and inputs you need, this is mandatory and if a judge allows you to be sued over this you can appeal, because it's just silly, you're trying to make something compatible, there's realistic way to do it otherwise. You reverse engineer the API and develop abstractions of the functionalities.
By doing that, you remove any chance of MS code being used in your product. In fact, once you do that algorithmic abstraction ... you can make it run better. The only thing that matters is that the programs calling those functions get what they need and get it in the manner they expect.
By doing that, you would support 100% applications developed with DX API, and better yet, there is absolutely no emulation happening.
The next problem is that you need to do the same thing to some Windows APIs.
But that is all very doable. From that, you could support these things, but also just have the DX API functions be aliases for your real suite. And in that, you can develop new features for and try to lobby developers over. I would imagine that creating a faster, more cutting edge gaming platform than Windows would win developers with ease. You can support whatever, and charge the price you want while delivering exactly what most every game enthusiast wants: no more ms hassle and faster performance from existing hardware. If you tossed in some features like IMing in any game over any existing network as well as integrated email ... which can all be accessed while in a game ... you'd have a very powerful tool and it'd do exactly what you're talking about.
HOWEVER, for an office environment or something like that ... that already exists. I've mentioned them several times in this thread already as well.
That's sort of random thoughts all thrown together, but you get what I'm saying.
The concerns you addressed before were for existing Window Managers and what I was getting at is that all of those things are independent of the operating system it self. I know that's sort of confusing if you've only used Windows ... but they should be seperate.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by reaper47 on Tue Jan 23rd at 4:29pm 2007
Now that's interesting. I never knew you could do that legally. :o
Posted by reaper47 on Tue Jan 23rd at 4:29pm 2007
? quote:
Reverse Engineering is perfectly legal
Now that's interesting. I never knew you could do that legally. :o
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Crono on Tue Jan 23rd at 11:00pm 2007
Posted by Crono on Tue Jan 23rd at 11:00pm 2007
Why would it be illegal? I mean, it's sort of silly to say, "It's against the law for you to figure out how things work". If you repackage a product you found and claim it in the process: that is illegal. But, observation is another form of Reverse Engineering, which doesn't even involve taking the thing apart, but rather how it reacts.
I don't think there's any court that would allow you to be sued for reverse engineering a product when you aren't violating any patent or copyright laws and the product is used for compatibility and an alternative to the all encompassing present "option", which isn't an option at all. It is also unfair to expect struggling developers to develop for something that doesn't pay their bills. So, it can also be seen as an anti-monopolization product and healthy competition.
I don't think there's any court that would allow you to be sued for reverse engineering a product when you aren't violating any patent or copyright laws and the product is used for compatibility and an alternative to the all encompassing present "option", which isn't an option at all. It is also unfair to expect struggling developers to develop for something that doesn't pay their bills. So, it can also be seen as an anti-monopolization product and healthy competition.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by FatStrings on Wed Jan 24th at 3:52am 2007
FatStrings
member
1242 posts
132 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 11th 2005
Location: USA
Occupation: Architecture Student
Posted by FatStrings on Wed Jan 24th at 3:52am 2007
without reverse engineering we would just have problems with monopolies anyway
FatStrings
member
1242 posts
132 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 11th 2005
Location: USA
Occupation: Architecture Student
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Tracer Bullet on Wed Jan 24th at 4:20am 2007
Tracer Bullet
member
2271 posts
367 snarkmarks
Registered: May 22nd 2003
Location: Seattle WA, USA
Occupation: Graduate Student (Ph.D)
Posted by Tracer Bullet on Wed Jan 24th at 4:20am 2007
I don't know a whole hell of allot about patent law, but I do think you could get into serious trouble reverse engineering a patented product. Patents typically cover a mechanism and a mode of use. For example, you might patent a particular molecular structure to treat a particular disease. (bear with me, I'm a chemist). Even if another company doing research into the same disease discovered the same molecule completely independently, they still wouldn't be able to sell it!
I expect the same would apply to a software application. If you mimicked a feature of someone else's software, and just happened to independently invent the same algorithm they used... I think you would get nailed. I don't know how likely that is to happen, but it seems like it could. For some things, there just aren't that many different ways to do it.
Tracer Bullet
member
2271 posts
367 snarkmarks
Registered: May 22nd 2003
Location: Seattle WA, USA
Occupation: Graduate Student (Ph.D)
Some people are like slinkys...
They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.
They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.
© Snarkpit.net 2001 - 2023, about us, donate, contact
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0171 seconds.
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0171 seconds.