I still expect this feature to roll out worldwide with some legalese fine print that the customer is responsible for configuring and operating the product "in accordance with local laws". I'd be really surprised if MS handles this differently.
No, this isn't right. There are totally legitimate use cases for PRNGs as sources of random number sequences following a certain probability distribution where freezing the seed and getting reproducibility is actually required.
I wonder how relevant Fitt's law is with bigger screens and the drastically changed ratio between mouse hand movement and cursor movement on screen. It used to be that you could reach a screen corner with a very simple flick of the mouse hand wrist. But that doesn't feel the same way anymore on modern hardware.
FWIW, Apple's known to have a slightly more aggressive mouse/trackpoint acceleration curve to account for this. (In retrospect it's probably why Apple went all out on luxuriously large trackpads.)
Depends on your configuration, I guess. I just tried this with my mx master with its standard resolution (so no ridiculous 800000 dpi gaming mouse) on a 4k 32" at 100% under windows. I can easily reach a corner with a quick flick of the wrist.
No, this is technically not fully correct. Early text based display output systems were relying on special character generator hardware to generate the display signals producing the text on screen. Those systems did not have any means of generating arbitrary pixel patterns.
Do you have an example? All the 8-bitters I know drew the characters from memory, which was a character ROM per default but could be changed either with a screw driver or by bank switching some RAM in-place.
EDIT: If you mean they were not copied in a frame buffer first, you are right. I should not have written 'blitting'.
Maybe too old to be applicable here, but the TRS-80 Models I and III (and probably more models) had no way to address pixels. You had to use semigraphic characters to emulate larger blocks at sub-character resolutions. https://bumbershootsoft.wordpress.com/2022/01/28/touring-the...
The character ROM was not read and processed by the CPU. The CPU set some bytes in video RAM, which served as indexes into the character ROM by the video output hardware.
I believe on some systems there were some tricks that allowed some bitmap display by redefining glyphs. One example off the top of my head is The 8-Bit Guy's Planet X2, which can use text mode but with glyphs redefined to use for icons, units, terrain, UI, etc.
I believe you are correct, VGA even had character rom, where 'individual pixels' were not drawn by the CPU itself, the software presented an array of indexes into the rom and the vga hardware itself blitted the characters onto the screen.
IBM PC / AT / PS/2 all had a separate text mode, with glyphs defined in character ROM or RAM. Read about CGA, EGA, VGA. So TUIs basically owned the place since mid-1980s when PCs became ubiquitous, until mid-1990s when Windows started to dominate.
This argument is actually backwards: one of the goals of the wayland project is to draw development away from X. If wayland didn't exist, people would have worked on X11 a lot more.
This question sounds to me like you suspect some outright evil getting projected here. That would go too far. The wayland project tried to get the support of X developers early so that they could become a sort of "blessed" X successor early on. Plenty of earlier replacement attempts have failed because they couldn't get bigger community support, so this had to be part of a successful strategy. Any detrimental effects on X from that move were never a direct goal, as far as I am aware, just a consequence.
This isn't quite right? Wayland was literally created by an X11 developer who got two more main X11 developers in. It's a second system, not a competitor as such.
Yes, I do interpret your “draw development away from X” as suggesting an attempt to damage X (sorry if I misinterpreted your post, but I do think my interpretation was not really that unreasonable).
This “blessed successor” without and detrimental effects as a main goal: that’s pretty close to my understanding of the project. IIRC some X people were involved from the beginning, right?
Wanting developers to switch projects doesn't have to be malicious, in fact personally i doubt there were any bad intentions in place, the developers of Wayland most likely think they're doing the right thing.
reply