HN user

ianhanschen

318 karma
Posts2
Comments48
View on HN

"Workspace is written from scratch. Some WindowMaker code is a part of Workspace (as well as configuration defaults) to provide window management functions. The code is tightly coupled with Workspace to provide seamless intergation. Configurable parameters of the integrated WindowMaker are spread across Workspace's Preferences and Preferences application."

Can you call it Itanic if it was around for more than a decade because of how well it sold and how many supercomputers chose to use it? I am familiar with the pain of Itanium, and I understand how hard it was to work with. I've kernel debugged an operating system on it. Yet it was still successful enough to be around for this long. I wouldn't call it "Itanic."

Guess I'm done reading the verge. I've watched many, many Starlink reviews out of curiosity and this is the only one so tinged by the author's mood.

It's clearly written as a kind of hit-piece. While other reviewers mention that the software specifically does not allow a device to be used outside of the area it is registered at (for FCC reasons), this piece mentions "The dish is small and light enough that you can easily move it to different locations, but you’re not guaranteed service anywhere but the address where you signed up." As if it's a coverage issue, and not the software blocking it from being used - which Starlink is very clear about.

This was bad.

I'm upvoting your comment but can you clarify on left brain/right brain? I thought split-brain/callosal syndrome showed us that a lot of our ideas about left brain right brain functional divide were true.

Edit for clarification: I was not expecting folks to respond to this by linking split-brain experiments; I am specifically referring to split-brain experiments showing us that our ideas about left brain/right brain were correct. This was in reply to "I'd agree with this author that they are oversimplified and generally incorrect - I'd add the left brain right brain divide to the list" -- I want to know what this person thinks, thanks.

On Linux you have two X servers instances, with 2 window managers, and 2 consoles. Each X server is working with a different display, so naturally the content ends up on the right display.

On Windows you have just one console, one window manager, and multiple monitors. The easiest way to accomplish this is to clone the two monitors in display settings so you're always using the same monitor, regardless of where you're sitting.

Windows can be made to behave like i3, with a lot of work. I've done a few different things over the years, but I never got into i3 so I haven't made my personal WM software work like that.

It's a bit of a curiosity nowadays, but Windows started out as a tiling system - if memory serves, overlapping windows were not supported until 2.1. But even then, it wasn't like i3.

- guy that worked on the Windows WM (USER & DWM) for over a decade

Looks cool. If you want to get rid of your hook DLLs and the need for the x86ipc child process, you can use SetWinEventHook() with EVENT_OBJECT_CREATE / EVENT_OBJECT_DESTROY as min/max event values and WINEVENT_OUTOFCONTEXT to get notification on newly created/destroyed windows, all within the context of your process. No hook DLLs required.

Because this is not the site for the project. This is the site for a Mac 68k version of the project, where they keep taking the author's code and translating the comments to English and really not much else so far. When the author releases new versions they merge the new code and translate the new comments to English. It's weird to me because SCSI isn't really OS specific, so other than writing some client app talk over SCSI and ask for images to be mounted, I can't make sense of why they are making a "Mac 68k" version.

Here is the original site (translation required): http://retropc.net/gimons/rascsi/index.html

Not a fan of miners disturbing GPU availability and pricing but this is a bad move. It’s not an engineering move, it’s a marketing move, and I’m sure the first attempt at doing this will come down to something just as shallow like a PCI PID check or some resistor strap check. Someone will find it worth the cost to make an FPGA based PCIe bridge that responds to the right knocks in the right way.

Great read. I wonder if the make -j modification wasn’t scaling things across all cores because it was using the physical core count (number of cores) versus the logical core count (number of core threads).

Or perhaps the code wasn’t modified to spread the work across all processor core groups (a Windows thing to support more than 64 logical cores).

https://bitsum.com/general/the-64-core-threshold-processor-g...