"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."
Barely mentioned, and the author makes us all die inside when they say "Too bad it was written for a whole different architecture and compiler so there is really no easy way for me to find out what it did."
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.
It's a window that mostly uses an edit control, but, having code in Notepad, it's not just a wrapper around the edit control. Could you write Notepad in a day or two? Perhaps. But it's deceiving to say that it's just a wrapper around the edit control.
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.
Before coming to Microsoft, I wrote my own EngAlphaBlend() accelerator driver in 2003 or so. I knew a lot about how things worked from disassembly but after coming to MS in 2004 I quickly destroyed a lot of my own assumptions. Mess? no. Complicated? yes.
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