begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Monday 04 September 2006 07:03 \__
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> A 3D animation of Linux source code development
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| These are 3D renderings of dependencies in the Linux kernel source code.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://perso.orange.fr/pascal.brisset/kernel3d/kernel3d.html
>>>
>>> Video in streaming Flash here:
>>>
>>> http://ssteam.ath.cx/news/3d-linux-kernel-visualizaiton/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm still fairly convinced that UIs are not really close to where they
>> need to be; this kind of thing seems to be heading the right way, but I
>> don't think we'll really be there until the mouse has gone and something
>> a bit more usable has replaced it.
>
>
> I thought about this earlier. When you already have GNU/Linux desktop
> environments (X server rather) with depth, you could easily augment
> interfaces. However, with flat screens, there is not much you can achieve,
> unless you fragment your view or pick up one of these babies <
> http://www.elumens.com/products/visionstation.html > (the company's URL is
> now broken; go figure).
>
> Now, use the same technique to project the view in a head-mounted display and
> use one of the many of the many (currently expensive) peripherals for 3-D
> interaction. All these gyroscope-enabled devices are extremely valuable. I
> used one of them when participating in an experiment at MCC (we have a
> visualisation centre there). Then, image yourself coming into work, putting
> on a mask and entering (as opposed to facing) an X session where you can
> grab windows in a 3-D space and even rotation a cube or the sphere that
> surrounds you (moving with your hands, feet, or head), if you desire to do
> so.
I've thought through many of these kinds of things in the past; one
idea I was particularly taken by was inspired by the simplicity of the
doom engine from the user's perspective - you could interact in
extremely complex ways in doom with very limited keystrokes, without
moving your hands off the keyboard; just as I thought I'd had the
really original idea of using the doom engine as an interface, someone
wrote the "doom shell". If you look on the web, there's probably still
a story about it somewhere - it was very funny!
>
> The technology is all there. You just need to plug X with the peripherals and
> modify the desktop environment to respond to new types of interactions. XGL
> already supports 'throwing' of windows, as you will find in
> touchscreens+XGL. The wobbly effect don't have a merit here, but
> translucency can be important while you work in a sphere with actual depth.
> Worth doing this type of research, but it takes a generous grant to make
> possible... and quite a lot of coding.
To get rapid progress, you need modular architectures; what's made
rapid progress in so many industries possible over the years has been
modularisation; imagine how difficult it would be to build a processor
out of discrete transistors, for example? Or a ship without standard
rivets and nuts & bolts. Cars would be unaffordable were it not for the
standard nature of so many components.
Same applies here - take the standard components of COTS hardware,
OSS/linux distribution, XGL, and then get thinking!
>
> Returning to MS bashing, Windows code is a mess, so it's not going anywhere,
> unless SP4 for Windows XP can be released in 2009, as promised. No surprises
> there. Have a look at Microsoft perception of the future office. They are
> neither innovative, nor ambitious/imaginative.
They've always been a stunningly successful business, with brilliant
marketing, and a fantastic grasp on how to influence/lobby government
and senior decision making people.
They've never been technically innovative.
>
> http://news.com.com/2300-1008_3-6070339-1.html (look ma! SP3 on 3 screens.
> And same ol' MS peripherals)
>
> Their vision is restricted by the limitations of their codebase and
> technology. And down they'll go.
Well, if Linux becomes successful, then MS could buy Apple and get a new
code-base to play with. In fact, one has to wonder just why MS fight
linux so hard - it could well be in their interests to see it become
more successful in order to allow such a takeover to avoid anti-trust
problems.
Windows is very much yesterday's technology, I think.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
This is the theory that Jack built.
This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built.
This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...
|
|
