Informacija

10.2: Gledajući naprijed - biologija

10.2: Gledajući naprijed - biologija



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Potkraj dvadesetog stoljeća nove su metode počele mijenjati lice biokemije. Pokretanje Projekta ljudskog genoma i razvoj bržih i jeftinijih tehnologija sekvenciranja omogućili su biokemičarima čitave sekvence genoma, ne samo ljudi, već i brojnih drugih organizama. Ogromne baze podataka postavljene su kako bi se bavile količinom podataka o nizovima generiranim različitim projektima genoma. Računalni programi katalogizirali su i analizirali ove sekvence, dajući smisao ogromnim količinama podataka.

Regije genoma koje kodiraju bjelančevine mogle bi se identificirati i prevesti "in silico" kako bi se zaključila aminokiselinska sekvenca kodiranih polipeptida. Mogle bi se napraviti usporedbe između genskih sekvenci različitih organizama. Paralelno s rastom informacija o sekvenci, sve više proteina strukture su određene pomoću rendgenske kristalografije i NMR spektroskopije, koje su također pohranjene u baze podataka kako bi bile dostupne svim znanstvenicima.

Nakupljanje ogromne količine podataka o slijedu i strukturi išlo je ruku pod ruku s novim i ambicioznim ciljevima biokemije. Suvremene biotehnološke tehnike dale su alate za proučavanje biokemije na potpuno nove načine. Stari načini podjele i osvajanja za proučavanje pojedinačnih reakcija sada se nadopunjuju pristupima koji dopuštaju istraživačima da u cijelosti proučavaju staničnu biokemiju.

Ova polja istraživanja, koja se zajednički često nazivaju '-omica', uključuju genomiku (proučavanje cijele DNK stanice), proteomiku (proučavanje svih proteina stanice), transkriptomiku (proučavanje svih proizvoda transkripcije stanice), i metabolomici (proučavanje svih metaboličkih reakcija stanice), između ostalih. Kao primjer, razmotrimo proteomiku. Područje proteomike bavi se svim proteinima stanice. Budući da su proteini „radni konjići“ stanica, spoznaja o tome koji se proizvodi u bilo kojem trenutku daje nam pregled svega što se događa u stanicama pod određenim uvjetima.

Kako se vrši takva analiza? Prvo se ekstrahiraju svi proteini iz određene vrste stanica (jetra, na primjer). Zatim se proteini odvajaju metodom gela u dva koraka, gdje prvi korak razlaže proteine ​​na temelju njihovog naboja, a drugi ih odvaja po masi. Proizvod ove analize je jedan gel (nazvan 2-D gel) na kojem su svi proteini odvojeni. U orijentaciji lijevo-desno razlikuju se po izvornom naboju, a u orijentaciji gore/dolje po veličini.

Pomoću takve tehnike može se odvojiti čak 6000 staničnih proteina i vizualizirati ih kao mrlje na jednom gelu. Robotske tehnike omogućuju izrezivanje pojedinačnih mrlja i analizu na masenim spektrometrima za identifikaciju svakog proteina prisutnog u izvornom ekstraktu.

Zašto je ovo korisno? Postoji nekoliko načina na koje ove informacije mogu biti osvijetljene. Na primjer, usporedbom proteina u normalnoj stanici jetre s onima u kancerogenoj stanici jetre, brzo se može utvrditi postoje li proteini koji se eksprimiraju ili nedostaju samo u stanicama raka. Te razlike između normalnih i kancerogenih stanica mogu dati tragove o mehanizmima nastanka raka ili predložiti načine liječenja raka. Ili bi se ista vrsta analize mogla provesti na stanicama kako bi se doznali učinci liječenja hormonima ili lijekovima. Usporedba proteina pronađenih u neobrađenim i tretiranim stanicama dala bi globalni uvid u promjene proteina proizašle iz tretmana.

Slične se analize mogu provesti na mRNA stanica, koristeći uređaje koji se nazivaju mikrorasplojevi. U ovom slučaju, sve RNK koje se stvaraju u vrijeme nastanka staničnog ekstrakta mogu se identificirati signalima generiranim kada se RNK hibridiziraju s oligonukleotidima komplementarnim njihovom slijedu, koji su imobilizirani u uređenim nizovima na površini ploče . Položaj i snaga ovih signala pokazuje koje su RNK napravljene i u kojim količinama.

Tehnike proteomike i transkriptomike, zajedno s drugim pristupima molekula "globalnog pogleda", poput lipida, ugljikohidrata itd., Omogućuju biokemičarima da po prvi put imaju "veliku sliku" o aktivnostima stanica. Iako su ove tehnike već dale vrijedne nove spoznaje, one su još uvijek nepotpune, kao opis onoga što se događa u stanicama. To je zato što nam pružaju snimku koja bilježi ono što se događa u stanicama u trenutku kada su bile prekinute za izradu ekstrakta. Ali stanice nisu statički entiteti. U svakom trenutku prilagođavaju svoje aktivnosti kao odgovor na promjenjive kombinacije unutarnjih i vanjskih uvjeta. Promjene u odgovoru na bilo koji signal mijenjaju se i utječu na svako drugo stanje, unutar i izvan stanice, i razumjeti te složene sustave kao integriranu cjelinu je novi sveti gral biokemije.

Cilj je, dakle, razviti modele koji prikazuju te dinamičke interakcije unutar stanica i razumjeti kako takve interakcije stvaraju svojstva i ponašanje koje promatramo. To je cilj novonastalog područja biologije sustava koje konstruira matematičke modele i simulacije, temeljene na velikim skupovima podataka generiranim transkriptomskim, proteomskim i drugim tehnikama širokog raspona. Sustavna biologija doista je interdisciplinarni pothvat, koji se oslanja na matematiku i računalstvo jednako kao i na tradicionalnu "biokemiju na klupi". Iako izvorne laboratorijske biokemijske tehnike nipošto nisu zastarjele, one više neće biti jedini alati za razumijevanje što se događa unutar stanica.

Ovi noviji pristupi već vode do aplikacija koje imaju ogromnu vrijednost. Razumijevanje razlika u razini sustava između normalnih i oboljelih stanica može dovesti do velikih promjena u načinu otkrivanja, liječenja ili potpunog sprječavanja bolesti.

Nedavni trijumf biologije sustava bio je u intrigantnom otkriću o tome kako djeluju antibiotici. Studije na razini sustava mnogih klasa antibiotika otkrile su da, bez obzira na to kako mislimo da djeluju na ubijanje bakterija, čini se da svi lijekovi imaju zajednički učinak - da povećavaju razinu oksidativnog oštećenja, što dovodi do stanične smrti. Ovo opažanje sugerira da bi se moć antibiotika mogla povećati blokiranjem bakterijskih odgovora koji štite od oštećenja oksidacijom. Ova je ideja testirana skriningom velikog broja spojeva na sposobnost inhibiranja puta koji bakterije koriste za popravak svoje DNK oštećene oksidacijom. Ovaj je zaslon dao nekoliko spojeva, od kojih je najbolji uspio povećati učinkovitost lijeka gentamicin za oko tisuću puta. Takvi će spojevi imati sve veću vrijednost u svijetu u kojem je otpornost na antibiotike u porastu.

Druga primjena biologije sustava je u razvoju učinkovitijih cjepiva. Do nedavno je većina cjepiva razvijena s malo razumijevanja o tome kako točno potiču imunološki odgovor. Budući da nam pristupi sistemske biologije omogućuju bolje razumijevanje promjena koje cjepiva unose u posredovanje imuniteta, bit će moguće identificirati obrasce koji karakteriziraju jače imunološke odgovore ili nuspojave na cjepiva, pa čak i predvidjeti koliko dobro određena cjepiva mogu djelovati u određenim cjepivima populacije ili pojedinci. Slično, studije na razini sustava mogu pomoći u utvrđivanju koji bi lijekovi mogli biti najučinkovitiji, s najmanje nuspojava za određenog pacijenta, što dovodi do nove ere personalizirane medicine.

S biologijom sustava, koja uvelike ovisi o njoj, povezana je sintetička biologija koja ima za cilj upotrijebiti znanje stečeno u prethodnom razdoblju za projektiranje novih bioloških sustava i putova. Budući da sada postoji tehnologija za sintezu iznimno dugih dijelova DNK, cijeli se genomi mogu sintetski izraditi i koristiti za programiranje stanica u koje su umetnuti. Također dopušta mogućnost prilagođenog projektiranja organizma za stvaranje određenih kemijskih spojeva putem umjetno sastavljenih putova.

Ove su metode već korištene za proizvodnju lijeka artemisinina, koji se koristi za liječenje malarije. Put za stvaranje prekursora artemisinina nastao je kombiniranjem metaboličkog puta kvasca s dijelom drugog izvedenog iz biljke Artemisia annua, prirodnog izvora artemisinina. Slični napori su u tijeku za lijekove protiv raka, nove lijekove, pogodne spojeve itd. Jedan od glavnih ciljeva je stvoriti organizme programirane za proizvodnju biogoriva koja bi potencijalno mogla zamijeniti naftu.

Uspjesi sustava i sintetičke biologije, čak i u povojima, obećavaju veliki napredak kako u našem razumijevanju živih sustava, tako i u aplikacijama koje proizlaze iz tog znanja. Sljedećih pedeset godina u biološkim istraživanjima moglo bi zasjeniti čak i zadivljujuća postignuća posljednjih. Liječnička praksa će se promijeniti. Regenerativna medicina će se poboljšati jer nam bolje poznavanje matičnih stanica omogućuje učinkovitiju uporabu za nadoknadu srčanog mišića izgubljenog u srčanom udaru, neurona oštećenih pri Parkinsonovoj ili Alzheimerovoj bolesti ili čak za ponovno oživljavanje udova izgubljenih u nesrećama ili ratu. Liječenje naših bolesti može se prilagoditi tako da bude optimalno za svakog pojedinca. Biogoriva nas mogu spasiti kada nestane zaliha nafte, a projektirani organizmi mogu pomoći u čišćenju zagađenog planeta. I istraživanje o dugovječnosti može nam dati najbolji dar u životu- produženo dovoljno dugo da svjedočimo tim napretcima i sudjelujemo u stvaranju novog i boljeg svijeta.


8.2 Gledajući naprijed

Laudato Si ' dobra je referenca za teme u ovoj knjizi, osobito u sljedećih nekoliko poglavlja, posebno za teme koje su relevantne za konzumerizam (uključujući „ubrzavanje“ i ono što Franjo više puta naziva „kulturom bacanja“) i ekološku vrlinu. Laudato Si ' završava poglavljem usredotočenim na obrazovanje o okolišu i duhovnost, koje odražava materijal duhovnosti divljine o kojem smo govorili u 7. poglavlju i upućuje naprijed i natrag na teme o ekološkom obrazovanju koje su u osnovi ove knjige.

Enciklika se temelji na pregledu najboljih suvremenih ekoloških spoznaja, ali je u svom srcu moralni dokument. Svetog Franju Asiškog uzima za uzor brige o stvaranju 一 nekoga tko je na stvaranje gledao kao na Božji dar i u njemu vidio odraz Božje dobrote i ljepote. Sveti Franjo oduševljen je otkrivši Božji odraz svuda oko sebe. Često, uzimajući u obzir drugoga, možemo biti svjesniji božanske prisutnosti u našim životima. Ova temeljna orijentacija prema Božjem stvaranju bitno je polazište i cjelokupna tema Laudato Si '. Položaj zahvalnosti, pohvale i otvorenosti može učiniti razliku ne samo u kako odgovaramo na potrebu brige za stvaranje ali u da li učinit ćemo sve da se brinemo za stvaranje.

Time se vraća Franjina sklonost prema pristupu skrbi 一 skrbi za naš zajednički dom 一 kao superiornom nad upraviteljstvom. Rekao sam na početku ovog poglavlja da mislim Laudato Si ' bio je najznačajniji razvoj u religijsko-ekologiji u posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća, i dok ostajem pri toj tvrdnji, bilo bi mi drago vidjeti Laudato Si ' blijed u usporedbi s njegovim ispunjenjem. Takav bi put vjerojatno uključivao i usvajanje integralne ekologije koja se oslanja na prirodnu ekologiju i ljudsku ekologiju, znanstvene i duhovne spoznaje i koja se suočava s teškim pitanjima u svoj njihovoj složenosti kako bi podržala pravdu i procvala za cijeli život.

Nakon što smo pomogli u instaliranju solarne energije u našu crkvu, upotrijebili smo istog solarnog izvođača za postavljanje ovog niza u našoj kući, u blizini našeg vrta. Bilo je inspirativno raditi u vrtu sa solarnim nizom koji "bdije nad nama", a u ovoj sceni, nakon što je vrt bio odrađen za sezonu, ploče su nastavile pretvarati sunčevu svjetlost u energiju. Colgate, WI. Fotografija: John Helt


10.2: Gledajući naprijed - biologija

Izdavač: Znanstveni tisak Horizon
Urednik: Andrea Cabibbo 1, Richard P. Grant 2 i Manuela Helmer-Citterich 1
1 Sveučilište u Rimu, Italija i 2 MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, UK
Datum objave: Travnja 2002
ISBN-10: 1-898486-32-8 (hbk)
ISBN-13: 978-1-898486-32-9 (hbk)
Stranice: vi + 377

Ovaj iznimno praktičan vodič detaljno objašnjava sve veće mogućnosti koje internet nudi staničnim biolozima, molekularnim biolozima i drugim bioznanstvenicima. Raspravlja se o svim aspektima Interneta, od popisa za slanje pošte i diskusionih grupa do objekata za pretraživanje redoslijeda, softvera za dizajn primera i baza podataka genoma. Ova je knjiga neizostavan priručnik prepun bitnih informacija o uporabi, namjeni i budućem potencijalu svih relevantnih resursa. Referentna knjiga koju morate imati za sve laboratorije za bioznanost.

". Izvanredan dodiplomski udžbenik. Izvanredan dopunski tekst svakom suvremenom tečaju molekularne ili strukturne biologije, molekularne genetike ili biokemije. referentna knjiga koju morate imati za znanstvene knjižnice" iz Internet Reference Services Quarterly (2004) 8 (4): 82-83 (prikaz, stručni).

Popis poglavlja

1. Internet: Sve što ste htjeli znati, a niste se usudili pitati

Lorenzo M. Catucci i Manuela Helmer-Citterich

1.1 Mreža čvorova

2. Odaberite pravo računalo

2.7 Snaga i troškovi računala

2.8 Što računalo radi?

2.9 Odabir operacijskog sustava

3. Osjećate li se sigurno? Razmislite ponovno: Internet sigurnost

3.3 Softver za zaštitu

3.3.2 Antivirusni softver

3.3.3 Hardverski usmjerivač sa značajkama vatrozida

3.4 Posebni napadi e-poštom

3.5 Jednostavna opća sigurnosna pravila

4. Dizajnirajte i izradite vlastitu laboratorijsku/odjelnu početnu stranicu

4.2 Dizajniranje i izrada web stranice

4.2.1 Planiranje stranice olovkom i papirom

4.2.2 Izrada web stranice

4.2.2.1 Vizualni HTML urednici

4.2.2.2 Zvona i zvižduci (obrasci, pulti, ploče)

4.2.2.3 Kratki tečaj HTML -a: osnove

5. Učinkovito korištenje tražilica za pronalaženje ljudi i informacija

5.1 Imenici i tražilice

5.2 Sintaksa pretraživanja: matematika tražilica

5.3 Traženje znanstvene literature: stranica NCBI PubMed

6. Mrežni alati za manipulaciju osnovnim sekvencama, analizu ograničenja, generiranje i evaluaciju PCR prajmera

6.1 Analiza ograničenja

6.2 Osnovna manipulacija slijedom

6.3 Generiranje i analiza PCR primera

6.4 Poslužitelji i veze za analizu slijedova

7. Teoretski aspekti poravnanja redoslijeda

Barbara Brannetti i Allegra Via

7.1 Poravnanja u paru

7.1.2 Globalno i lokalno usklađivanje

7.1.4 Umetanja i brisanja

7.1.5 Statistička značajnost poravnanja

7.2 Više poravnanja

7.2.2 Više usklađivanja: zašto nam trebaju?

7.2.3 Globalno i lokalno usklađivanje

7.2.4 Zamjene, brisanja i umetanja

7.2.5 Kako dobivamo višestruko poravnanje?

7.2.6 Predviđanje gena i usklađivanje uzoraka

8. Analizirajte DNK sekvencu s vašim preglednikom

8.1.1 Opis zapisa baze podataka Genbank

8.2.2 Kako FASTA radi, opis korak po korak

8.3 Predviđanje strukture gena

8.3.2 Traženje funkcionalnih mjesta u DNK sekvencama

9. Praktični aspekti analize proteinske sekvence

9.1 Baze podataka o sekvenci proteina

9.2 Poravnanja po parovima i pretraživanje baze podataka

9.2.5 Usklađivanje dva niza

9.2.7 PSI-BLAST izlaz

9.3 Više poravnanja

9.3.3 Uređivanje višestrukog poravnanja

9.4 Skriveni markovski modeli (HMM)

9.5 Motivi i uzorci

9.5.1 Uzorci i baze podataka domene

9.5.2 Poslužitelji za skeniranje uzoraka i baza podataka domena

10. Od slijeda do strukture: jednostavan pristup predviđanju strukture proteina

10.1 Načela strukture proteina

10.1.1.1 Struktura proteina

10.1.1.2 Tehnike eksperimentalnog određivanja strukture proteina

10.1.2 Strukture baza podataka

10.1.2.1 Proteinska banka podataka i PDBSum

10.1.2.5 DALI, FSSP i HSSP

10.1.3 Vizualizacija molekularnih struktura: alati za molekularnu grafiku

10.1.3.2 SwissPDBViewer

10.1.4 Usporedba strukture proteina

10.2 Predviđanje strukture proteina

10.2.1 Predviđanje sekundarne strukture

10.2.2 Homološko modeliranje

10.2.3 Prepoznavanje preklopa

10.2.4 Ab initio Predviđanje

10.2.5 Vrednovanje metoda predviđanja strukture

10.3 Predviđanje transmembranske topologije

11. Dopustite drugima da riješe vaše probleme: grupe za vijesti

11.1 Usenet za početnike

11.3 Pristup i (n) bonton

11.4 Kako koristiti čitač vijesti

11.6 Korisne veze i daljnje čitanje

12. Roaming Scientist: Nabavite se na mreži, upravljajte svojom e-poštom i razmjenjujte datoteke sa svih strana

12.1.1 Institucija domaćin

12.1.2 Povezivanje od kuće (dial-up)

12.2.1 Kako koristiti svoj poslovni e-mail račun od kuće ili iz inozemstva

12.2.2 Korištenje računa e-pošte na webu: čitajte i šaljite e-poštu s bilo kojeg računala spojenog na internet


Gledajući unatrag i gledajući naprijed, 2007. - 2020

U kasno ljeto 2007., Brian Anderson (suosnivač BBP -a) i ja sjedili smo na zadimljenoj padini u Ketchumu u Idahu i razgovarali o biciklima. Bili smo uzavrela posada i upravo smo ugasili Castle Rock Fire, požar koji je gotovo izgorio povijesno skijalište Sun Valley i oko 100 okolnih kuća. Nakon pet uzastopnih dana paljenja drveća na strmim padinama s labavim stijenama, motorne pile su nam neprestano radile, 100% smo ga obuzdali i na kraju imali nekoliko minuta da sjednemo.

U ovom je razgovoru rođen BBP. Dva mjeseca kasnije obnavljali smo dječje bicikle i darovali ih susjedima i našoj izbjegličkoj zajednici kojoj je to potrebno. Nisam siguran je li netko od nas zamislio gdje bi danas bio BBP. Više od 7000 bicikala donirano je djeci. Osoblje od 17 zaposlenih. Tisuće dobrovoljaca. Jedna od najpriznatijih neprofitnih organizacija u Dolini blaga…. Popis se može nastaviti.

Nakon 13 godina, ponekad se zapitam da li bih, s 25 godina (kad sam započeo BBP), znao da me čeka nevjerojatno naporan posao, svejedno to učinio. Realnost je da sam upozoren. Ne mogu vam reći koliko nam je ljudi reklo da je BBP nemoguća ideja kad smo tek pokušavali započeti. Svaki put kad su to učinili, to je još više rasplamsalo našu vatru. Čak i kao naivni 25-godišnjaci, znali smo da će put pred nama biti težak-stvaranje pozitivnih promjena uvijek jest-i ne treba mi dugo da se sjetim da je poteškoća bila dio privlačnosti.

BBP je uvijek bio i bit će organizacija koja radi teške stvari. JFK je jednom rekao

Odlučili smo otići na Mjesec u ovom desetljeću i raditi druge stvari, ne zato što su laki, već zato što su teški, jer će taj cilj poslužiti za organizaciju i mjerenje najbolje naše energije i vještina, jer je taj izazov jedan koje smo spremni prihvatiti ...

2007. vjerovali smo da Boise ima potencijal biti prijestolnica bicikala Amerike - to je bio naš "mjesec", naša vizija. U 2020. to još uvijek činimo, i unatoč godinu dana borbe za naš osnovni opstanak, i dalje slijedimo tu viziju, i dalje poduzimajući velike korake, poput kanala

U petak, 9. listopada 2020., BBP će proslaviti 13 godina gađanja Mjeseca, čvrsto se držeći i uživajući u vožnji. Želim da budeš tamo slaviti (sigurno i na daljinu) s nama dok ulazimo u sljedeću fazu slijeđenja naše vizije da Boise postane američka prijestolnica bicikala.


10.2 Izjave o upravljačkom toku

Kontrolni izrazi toka kontroliraju redoslijed izvođenja različitih dijelova koda. Mogu se koristiti za radnje poput provjere izvođenja koda samo kada su ispunjeni određeni uvjeti, za ponavljanje kroz strukture podataka, za ponavljanje nečega dok se ne dogodi određeni događaj, itd. Kontrolni tokovi često se koriste pri pisanju funkcija ili obavljanju složenih zadataka transformacija podataka.

10.2.1 naredbe if i if-else

blokovi if i if-else omogućuju vam da strukturirate tijek izvođenja tako da se određeni izrazi izvode samo ako su ispunjeni određeni uvjeti.

Opći oblik if izraza je:

Evo jednostavnog if izraza u kojem provjeravamo je li broj manji od 0,5, i ako je tako, dodijelimo vrijednosti varijabli.

Odredba else navodi što učiniti u slučaju da je if naredba ne pravi. Kombinirano općenito za izraz if-else je:

Naš prethodni primjer ima više smisla ako uključimo klauzulu else.

Uz dodatak else naredbe, ovaj se jednostavni kodni blok može zamisliti kao simuliranje bacanja novčića.

10.2.1.1 if-else u funkciji

Uzmimo naš gornji primjer "if-else" iznad i pretvorimo ga u funkciju koju ćemo nazvati coin.flip. Doslovno ponovno tumačenje našeg prethodnog koda u kontekstu funkcije je otprilike ovako:

coin.flip.literal prilično je dug za ono što radi-stvorili smo privremenu varijablu x koja se koristi samo jednom i stvorili smo varijablu face za držanje rezultata naše naredbe if-else, ali smo odmah zatim vratili rezultat. To je neučinkovito i smanjuje čitljivost naše funkcije. Mnogo kompaktnija implementacija ove funkcije je sljedeća:

Imajte na umu da se u našoj novoj verziji coin.flip ne trudimo stvoriti privremene varijable x i face te odmah vraćamo rezultate unutar naredbe if-else.

10.2.1.2 Više if-else izraza

Kad postoje više od dva moguća ishoda od interesa, više iskaza if-else može se povezati zajedno. Evo primjera s tri ishoda:

10.2.2 za petlje

Naredba for ponavlja kroz elemente niza (poput vektora ili popisa). Uobičajena upotreba izraza for jest izvršiti izračun za svaki element niza (ali pogledajte raspravu o karti ispod) ili izvršiti izračun koji uključuje sve elemente niza.

Opći oblik for petlje je:

Kao primjer, recimo da smo htjeli pozvati našu funkciju coin.flip više puta. Mogli bismo koristiti for petlju na sljedeći način:

Upotrijebimo for petlju za stvaranje funkcije multi.coin.flip koja prihvaća izborni argument n koji određuje broj okretanja novčića koje treba izvesti:

S ovom novom definicijom, jedan poziv coin.flip vraća jedan rezultat:

A pozivanje multi.coin.flip s numeričkim argumentom vraća više okretanja novčića:

10.2.2.1 Savjet za učinkovitost

Alternativni način za pisanje gore navedene funkcije multi.coin.flip bio bi:

Ako znate konačnu duljinu vašeg vektora, mnogo je brže stvoriti prazan vektor potrebne duljine:

npr. vektor (mode = & quotcharacter & quot, length = n) # radi brzo

nego stvoriti prazan vektor nulte snage, a zatim ga sekvencijalno proširiti:

npr. flips & lt- c (flips, coin.flip ()) # radi sporo

10.2.3 break naredba

Naredba break omogućuje vam izlaz iz petlje čak i ako nije dovršena. Ovo je korisno za završetak kontrolne izjave kada su neki kriteriji zadovoljeni. naredbe break obično su ugniježđene u naredbama if.

U sljedećem primjeru koristimo break naredbu unutar for petlje. U ovom primjeru odabiremo slučajne stvarne brojeve između 0 i 1, skupljajući ih u vektoru (slučajni.brojevi). For petlja osigurava da nikada ne izaberemo više od 20 slučajnih brojeva prije nego što petlja završi. Međutim, izjava break dopušta petlji da se prerano završi ako je odabrani broj veći od 0,95.

10.2.4 ponavljanje petlji

Ponavljajuća petlja petljat će u nedogled sve dok iz petlje izričito ne izađemo s naredbom break. Na primjer, evo primjera kako možemo upotrijebiti repeat i break za simulaciju okretanja novčića dok ne dobijemo glavu:

10.2.5 sljedeća izjava

Sljedeće zasićenje omogućuje vam da zaustavite obradu trenutne iteracije petlje i odmah prijeđete na sljedeću stavku petlje. Ovo je korisno kada želite preskočiti izračune za određene elemente niza:

10.2.6 while izjave

Naredba while ponavlja se sve dok je uvjet uvjeta koji sadrži istinit. U sljedećem primjeru while petlja poziva coin.flip dok se ne dobije rezultat "heads" i prati broj okretanja. Imajte na umu da ovo predstavlja istu logiku kao primjer ponavljanja prekida koji smo vidjeli ranije, ali u kompaktnijem obliku.

10.2.7 ifelse

Funkcija ifelse ekvivalentna je za -loop s ugniježđenom naredbom if -else. ifelse primjenjuje navedeni test na svaki element vektora i vraća različite vrijednosti ovisno o tome je li test istinit ili netočan.

Evo primjera korištenja ifelse za zamjenu NA elemenata u vektoru s nulama.

Ekvivalent for-loop mogao bi se napisati kao:

Funkcija ifelse očito je kompaktniji i čitljiviji način za postizanje toga.


RCCrawler forumi

Vrijeme je za novu izgradnju, a sada kada znam koliko je dobra platforma Axial SCX10.2, odlučio sam izgraditi drugu. Za razliku od prvog kompleta od 10.2 koji sam izgradio, a koji je još uvijek prilično zaliha, ovaj će biti daleko od zaliha. Proveo sam mnogo sati usavršavajući svoj izvorni 10.2 i jedan je od najboljih programa za indeksiranje koje posjedujem i ne planiram ga nadograđivati ​​puno više ako se nešto ne pokvari.

Ova će konstrukcija imati nešto duži međuosovinski razmak (vjerojatno oko 13 ") kako bi odgovarala karoseriji koju ću koristiti. Koristit ću novu Prolineinu Toyotu HiLux SR5 iz 1985. godine sa stražnjim kavezom Vaterra K10 s aluminijskim pločama.

Elektronika će biti sljedeća:

MMP
HH Puller Pro 2200kV Standard
Dvorac BEC
Spektrum RX
Xpert HV WR-7701 Servo bez četkica

Dijelovi koji su do sada stigli:

Vanquish proizvodi SCX10 II prijenosno gornje vratilo
Traxxas Kit za obnovu udara (TRX2362)
Traxxas Jato štap završava s šupljim loptama
STRC Aluminijsko kućište H podupirač, crna
Vanquish proizvodi 1.9 Aluminijska metoda 105 Race Wheels
Vanquish SLW čvorišta .350 i .475 (nisam siguran koju ću veličinu još koristiti)
Team Ottsix Racing 1.9 Voodoo KLR guma - smjesa srebra
Team Ottsix Racing 1.9 Dvije faze pjene - laki kamioni

Dijelovi koji se još uvijek otpremaju:

Incis SCX10 II 1/4 komplet za povezivanje od 10 komada od nehrđajućeg čelika
Vanquish proizvodi Currie RockJock SCX10 II Prednja osovina, crno eloksirano
Vanquish proizvodi Currie RockJock SCX10 II Stražnja osovina crna eloksirana
Vanquish proizvodi SCX10 II Špula x2
Aluminijski zglobovi SSD Pro za SCX10 II (crni)
Freqeskinz omot za tijelo SR5

Zasad ću koristiti Exile RC mjedene utege s prednjom stranom od mesinga jer su nešto teži od utega zglobova SSD -a, ali to bi se moglo promijeniti.

Ovo je polazište i kao i uvijek, nikad nema kraja jer se čini da se moje platforme uvijek razvijaju.

Jedva čekam da ova izgradnja počne. uživajte u vožnji.


Zaostali grafikoni korisni su za višestruku regresiju, baš kao što su bili za bivarijantnu regresiju.

Prvo iscrtavamo zaostatke u odnosu na svaku varijablu prediktora pojedinačno.

Sada iscrtavamo zaostatke u 3D prostoru, s ravninom paralelnom s ravninom xy (wt, hp-ravninom) koja predstavlja ravninu oko koje bi se zaostaci trebali homogeno raspršiti ako vrijede pretpostavke modela linearne regresije.


SUSE 10.2: Gledajući KDE

“Ovaj post dolazi uslijed konvergencije niza događaja. Prvo, na OSNewsu je bila priča pod naslovom ‘Has Desktop Linux Bubble Burst? ’ To je generiralo brojne odgovore, jedan od njih od Aarona J. Seiga. Uz svu dramu koja je zujala u pozadini, vratio sam se na instalaciju Suse 10.2 i počeo gledati KDE radnu površinu. ”

O autoru

Thom Holwerda

44 komentara

pa, nije li ovaj momak zadovoljan KDE -om …, moram reći da sam i ’m zadivljen Suseom 10.2. poput novog KDE izbornika i ukupnog povećanja brzine, osobito u upravljanju sustavom.

Koristim KDE, volim KDE, ali KDE me usporava.

Gnome pokrećem na svojim Ubuntu kutijama na poslu, ali, slažem se s autorom. KDE mi jako dobro radi na Slackware-u i FreeBSD-u :-)

Potrebne su hrabrosti reći što je ovaj tip rekao, to bi moglo opet izazvati ozbiljne plamene

Ne slažem se s tim da je KDE zasjenio Gnome, mislim da je popularnost Ubuntua#8217 dovela Gnome na razinu prihvaćanja u kojoj nikada prije nije uživao.

Rekavši to, ne mogu se s njim više složiti u njegovim komentarima o GTK -u i važnosti čvrstih temelja. Neki bi sada mogli smatrati da su Gnome i KDE podjednako sposobni, ali čvrsto vjerujem da će Qt i KDElibs dugoročno dati prednost KDE -u.

To ne bi trebalo nikoga iznenaditi. Zbog toga je Mono dobio dosta pristaša u kampu Gnome. Ostavljajući uvijek polemična pitanja patenata po strani, jasno je da ti ljudi znaju da im trebaju bolji temelji ako žele zadržati svoju konkurentnost. Bilo da se radi o Mono -u, Javi ili nečem drugom, čini se sigurnim da je potrebna bolja platforma na kojoj će se graditi njihov softver. To je mjesto gdje je KDE ionako uvijek blistao.

& gtMotivacija za postojanje Gtk+/Gnomea#8217 je nestala,

& gtand nema već neko vrijeme.

Smiješno kako ovo iskrivljuje povijest, GTK označava GIMP Tool Kit, a svrha je bila zamijeniti Motif nečim što je besplatno. GNOME je odabrao GTK+ kao svoj komplet alata i nije ga stvorio, pa bez obzira na to što mislite da je motivacija GNOMES -a za postojanje (i mislim da je ovaj tip pun sranja po tom pitanju), to ne utječe na motivaciju GTK+ za postojanje u bilo kojem put.

& gtVjerujem da se ne može učiniti ništa

& gtGtk+, čak i ako se dogodilo čudo i pravi broj

& gtof visoko organiziranog, vrhunski kvalificiranog softvera

& gtengineers odjednom su se pojavili s planom da poprave

& gtproblemi koji postavljaju Gtk+ i Gnome.

Ovo je nagađanje zasnovano na ideji da su GTK+ i GNOME loše projektirani. Nema činjenica samo mišljenje. GTK+ je dosta prerađivan za verziju 2.0, a 1.0 bi mogao uzeti mnogo ideja iz Motiva (samo pomislite kako je GTK implementirao GDK kao apstrakciju umjesto da samo koristi X izravno) i tko zna odakle su još uzeli ideje?

GTK+ je dobar softver jedina valjana točka (i mislim da o tome jbauer govori kad ulazi u Mono) je da je GTK+ samo skup widgeta, a QT puno više. Ali ta točka nikada nije izravno iznesena (a ni ja ne razmišljam neizravno) i blizu je nevažne u jezicima poput Pythona ili Monoa pa možete sami odlučiti koliko je ta točka uistinu teška.

Brinete o konkurenciji jer trenutno imaju nekih problema i nisu baš poput sportaša. Ne bismo li trebali sada biti iznad ovoga?

“Smiješno kako ovo iskrivljuje povijest, GTK je kratica za GIMP Tool Kit, a svrha je bila zamijeniti Motif nečim što je besplatno. GNOME je odabrao GTK+ kao svoj komplet alata i nije ga stvorio, pa bez obzira na to što mislite da je motivacija GNOMES -a za postojanje (i mislim da je ovaj tip pun sranja po tom pitanju), to ne utječe na motivaciju GTK+ za postojanje u bilo kojem način. ”

Gnome je osnovan moj Miguel ZBOG Qt ’s licence. Miguel je bio KDE haker prije nego što je uopće pokrenuo Gnome. Bio je razočaran situacijom s licencom Qt, pa je tako započeo vlastiti projekt.

GIMP Tool Kit stvorili su programeri GIMP -a zbog Motif -a, naravno. Gnome još uvijek ne bi postojao da je Qt od početka GPL. Možda bi bilo pokrenuto još jedno okruženje za stolna računala, ali Miguel je odabrao GTK jer su ga ljudi iz GIMP -a već pokrenuli i smatrao je to održivom opcijom.

Njegove su činjenice točne, pa nisam siguran u čemu je vaš problem?

Gnome je osnovan moj Miguel ZBOG Qt ’s licence.

& gtMiguel je bio KDE haker prije nego što je uopće pokrenuo Gnome.

& gtOn je bio razočaran situacijom s licencom Qt, i

& gtthus je pokrenuo vlastiti projekt.

& gtGIMP Tool Kit su stvorili programeri GIMP -a zbog

& gtMotif, svakako. Gnome još uvijek ne bi postojao da je Qt

& gtwas GPL od početka. Možda bi ih bilo

& gta drugo okruženje radne površine je započelo, ali Miguel je odabrao

& gtGTK jer su ga ljudi iz GIMP -a već započeli, a on

& gtsaw kao održivu opciju.

& gtOve činjenice su točne, pa nisam ’m siguran gdje je vaš problem

Autorske činjenice nisu točne jer nikada ne spominje točke A ili B i miješa ih. If you read the parts I’ve quoted you will see he lumps GTK+ and Gnome together. I mentioned point A to demonstrate that he is confusing an issue.

GTK existed prior to Gnome and was motivated by something other then QT’s license Gnome chose it but could have chosen TK just as easily (supposedly Miguel considered TK). The author is stating that Gnome outlived its motivation because QT’s license was changed but by lumping GTK+ with Gnome the author is also stating that GTK+ outlived its motivation. That is plain false.

Is muddling the facts and making false points not an issue to you?

Other then that there are lots of other issues with the article, for example that the original motivation of Gnome hasn’t changed or that Gnome hat only one motivation. I don’t know about you but I remember KDE 1 and that annoying program bar at the top would have been enough reason for me to start a new project.

Didn’t you realize the guy is doubts the right of Gnome to exist? And by extension GTK+ which had nothing to do with Gnome at the beginning? What would become of the Gnome based Apps and the GTK+ based apps?

IF his point was remotely valid, THEN the point made by Gnome zealots that KDE had no reason to exist during the times QT was not Free Software was equally valid. I find both points are total bullshit and that somebody could even mention something so stupid is rather offensive.

The sole reason for GTK+ to exit should be to support the apps build on it and the same holds true for Gnome. Same goes for all tool kits and DEs, any opinion to the contrary is basically politically motivated bullshit.

I can see that the article was definitely written by a poor soul.

First of all, you can clearly see right from the beginning that the author’s opinion is biased (by his discontent with Gnome). It doesn’t matter if you prefer Gnome or KDE or any other Window Manager. They all have it’s pros and cons. But they all share the fact that they’re available from a group of developers’ good will, for free. Seeing the author saying those things, especially that is hopeless (ooooh deeeeear!) about Gnome and GTK is like stabing it in the back.

KDE is good for tuning freaks (like the author, as you can see). Gnome has simplicity and coherency all over, it’s easier to use than KDE. No wonder the big comercial linux offerings go all to Gnome (Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu). So, why didn’t the author try to explain this?

Still, it may be true that Gnome will suffer from the lack GTK progression, but for now, my opinion is that it is a good window manager. Oh, and please do everyone a favor and try to make consctructive criticism.

“No wonder the big comercial linux offerings go all to Gnome (Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu). So, why didn’t the author try to explain this?”

You forgot Sun in that list. That said, pro-GNOME folks keep trotting out this argument, but under closer scrutiny it just doesn’t hold much water.

As to Redhat, they’ve for quite a while now abandoned the notion of a Linux desktop. I read that with RHEL5 they’d like to reverse some of that, but for a number of years now they’ve been pushing Linux as a server platform, and not a viable desktop option. Shoot, from what I hear their sales force doesn’t even use it on their own personal systems (what do they use? hint, starts with a W).

Sun’s a similar story to Redhat (though using Solaris instead), in that they market themselves primarily as a server platform, with maybe some high end specialized workstation type stuff. Aren’t they pretty much frozen on GNOME 2.6 or something still anyhow?

As to Novell, well no big surprise there. Remember, Novell’s Linux entity is a (not always harmonious) coupling of two very different companies: Ximian (founded by GNOME’s original founder…) and SUSE (which historically has been very KDE-centric up until the aquisition by Novell). As I mention below, with openSUSE 10.2, it looks like they’re now going back to some of their roots (at least in the sense of bringing some balance.)

Ubuntu, again no surprise, since much/most of the original devs that Shuttleworth scooped up in the beginning of the project were Debian GNOME maintainers. So it’s not shocking that they’d have chosen GNOME as their springboard. That said, there is this thing called Kubuntu which looks rather popular as well…

Anyhow, the argument is a little moot. Seriously, how much of a real presence would you say Linux as a _desktop_ has in the enterprise market anyhow (and this coming from the resident desktop linux zealot at my work (a university)). The only company I can think of off the top of my head with a real desktop presence is Burlington Coat Factory, and at least on their POS units it looked more like it was running IceWM or something.

Final point: I imagine most of the desktop Linux presence out there is by enthusiasts for the platform. And in that case, taking a look at the more hobbiest oriented distros out there is interesting. Zašto? Because, for whatever reasons, they largely appear to favour KDE instead as their desktop of choice.

“The only company I can think of off the top of my head with a real desktop presence is Burlington Coat Factory, and at least on their POS units it looked more like it was running IceWM or something. ”

That’s one of the problems with desktop linux. It can look like anything therefore nobody knows what linux is supposed to look like or how it’s supposed to work. That’s great for enthusiasts but it’s not going to sell to corps

> That’s one of the problems with desktop linux. It can look like anything therefore nobody knows what linux is supposed to look like or how it’s supposed to work. That’s great for enthusiasts but it’s not going to sell to corps

That’s a bad thing? They can make it into a win2k look-alike or design a desktop that provides their exact requirements. The source is there, they are free to change it however they choose to.

That’s a bad thing? They can make it into a win2k look-alike or design a desktop that provides their exact requirements.

Yes, you, like many others, have re-revealed why “choice is bad” ™ [troll mark].

This is because the customer gets many more options for having a system that meets their needs, i.e. “is different from what I use and therefore unknown, prob’ly bad”.

Yes, “choice is bad” ™ defies the marketing wisdom that customer choice is a selling point. “choice is bad” ™ bravely warns us that even *if* the customer actually knows what they need to perform their daily operations they will be unable to select it from a group if more than one option is offered to them. Therefore multiple options equals no sale.

The plus side of this is that the salesperson who has the least to offer absolutely ROOLZ (and doesn’t have to spend a bunch of time staying up to date on the product).

[The only company I can think of off the top of my head with a real desktop presence is Burlington Coat Factory ]

Are you sure that you have seen enough companies. Let me add some of the BIG ones ::

1) IBM – arguably having the biggest workforce in IT industry. They are having a modified version of RHEL and use it on their desktops. They have even ported ll their internal applications on RHEL. So if one fine day u want to Run Lotus Notes ( mail client) or for that matter most of IBM applications, well they run on Linux.

2) Yahoo – Most of their desktops are FreeBSD based. The default desktop is KDE. They have plans to port all their applications to KDE/Gnome.

3) Google – They use Linux in big way. Ubuntu is one of the distro they use and use it to the extent that there is a buzz of google bringing out Gubuntu.

4) The city of Munich has migrated more than 14,000 computers to their own version of Linux (LiMux ).

OK I agree that all the above mentioned also use Windows, but the number of people using Linux/FreeBSD on desktop is not small by any standards.

If Steve Balmer believed that Linux is no threat to Windows on desktop, then MS would never have made a deal with Novell. But then, this is my personla view.

>> You forgot Sun in that list.

Let me tell you about my initial experience with Solaris Enterprise System 6/06. I have the complete DVD set, sent to me when I responded to an invitation to review it. I have a lot of good experiences with Solaris on SPARC, so I didn’t hesitate to say yes.

I got the software and attempted to install it on two Boxx systems built with Athlon FX 56 (socket 939) CPUs and ASUS motherboards. The first attempt on the first box installed, but seemed to only come up with CDE as the desktop. When I did it myself the second time (on the second system) I figured out how to select and install the Gnome-based desktop. While the underlying OS was top-notch, the desktop was not. It was very dated, and the overall display quality was poor, especially when compared to Ubuntu, FC5, and Suse 10.1 under Gnome. In the end I installed SLED 10 over the second Solaris install, and the folks who managed the first Boxx dropped Windows XP back on it. I recommend and admire Solaris for it’s superb server capabilities, even over Linux, especially on x86 machines.

>> …with openSUSE 10.2, it looks like they’re now

>> going back to some of their roots…

Slažem se. I don’t know how OpenSuse 10.2 will feed into SLED, but SLED 10 put some real polish on the OpenSuse 10.1 release. I’m very interested to see how the next major release of SLED turns out with the advances in KDE I’ve seen in OpenSuse 10.2.

>> Final point: I imagine most of the desktop Linux

>> presence out there is by enthusiasts for the

Or, as in my case and a few others I know, as a development platform for Linux server applications or embedded Linux work. This fight over the desktop has become irrelevant. Linux will not take it over. Everybody in the business world concedes this. But that doesn’t mean Linux is dead far from it. Linux is a powerful enabling software technology for new hardware directions. Whenever I want to drop an embedded 32-bit chip into a new device, I turn invariably to an ARM or Geode chip running… Linux. Look at what’s happening with phones. Or better yet, go look at LinuxDevices (http://www.linuxdevices.com). Linux is an enabler for new technologies simply because it is so flexible from a software engineering standpoint. And it doesn’t cost you anything to use it, except the work necessary to customize it for your specific needs.

KDE is good for tuning freaks (like the author, as you can see).

It would have been much better if you had stated why you think GTK/Gnome is good by making clear what you think are its strong points. There was no need to include that sentence in your argumentation. I think it’s fair to say KDE’s virtues go well beyond its ability to be customized, and not every user that likes KDE do so only because they want to ‘tune’ it to the extremes.

>KDE is good for tuning freaks (like the author, as you can see). Gnome has simplicity and coherency all over, it’s easier to use than KDE. No wonder the big comercial linux offerings go all to Gnome (Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu). So, why didn’t the author try to explain this? & lt

I hardly think that changing the color of your window decoration or changing your wallpaper is is being a tuning freek.

the bottom line is that most windows users will discouraged by the inability to change simple things that they can easily change in windows or osx when using the gnome desktop. I know in coorporate settings this may be a little different, but on a typical home users desktop, this annoys the hell out of people which is exactly why i don’t use gnome.

If i want to use change my desktop settings i don’t want to do it form the cli.

Šališ se? Compared to Windows or OSX, GNOME is still a dream come true for desktop tweakers. The main reason it has taken some time to get decent colour changing support is, that it is much harder to do with custom themes and theme engines. I don’t see Windows or OSX providing anything like that out of the box.

GNOME has no interest in making a regular user’s life hell in favour of corporate environments, that’s a myth at best.

well, in windows, i can change the color of the windowdecoration, and most other colors as well. same with KDE (even more precise, actually). but not in Gnome. it annoyed the heck out of me…

Quote: “KDE is good for tuning freaks (like the author, as you can see). Gnome has simplicity and coherency all over, it’s easier to use than KDE. No wonder the big comercial linux offerings go all to Gnome (Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu). So, why didn’t the author try to explain this”

They go for Gnome because they don’t want to pay licensing fees to Trolltech for the QT toolkit. Običan i jednostavan.

I use Microsoft Windows as my default operating system these days (wake me up when they get Photoshop CS2 working reliably on WINE), and I use Webshots – does that make me a ‘tuning freak’ as you so subtletly put it?

KDE, whilst based on QT, is also “from the developer’s good will”, but your comment assumes that this can only be the case if the desktop environment is sourced from a totally free toolkit (GTK+).

I see this type of argument all of the time on Photography forums – Canon vs Nikon. My Nikon is better because…my Canon is better because…I prefer…blah blah blah. In the end, the main thing is what works for you, the user. When I used Linux, I used KDE as my desktop, because it worked for me and I preferred it. Ergo, it was better [to me]. I tried Gnome, and in all honesty it didn’t do anything for me whatsoever. Recent tries using Ubuntu’s live disk still do little for me.

They go for Gnome because they don’t want to pay licensing fees to Trolltech for the QT toolkit. Običan i jednostavan.

Pogrešno. Trolltech asks for licensing fees only for commercial closed-source applications, if you are developing an open-source one – you don’t have to pay anything.

Yes, but big players like Redhat and Novell want to tailor and customise KDE to suit their needs, and I think you’ll find (unless I’m very much mistaken) that they then need to pay licensing fees to Trolltech.

Either that or such big corporations have reasons to back Gnome rather than KDE (or some other desktop environment).

In all honesty, I found XFCE to be light years ahead of Gnome – in looks, features and usability, and they do it on a shoe string budget I’m sure, with far less resources. This, of course, is my opinion, you can like it or leave it. It’s good to see the Gnomites of old are still at their old tricks of modding down anything that doesn’t pay ‘homage’ to their belovéd Gnome.

I’ve read many Suse/OpenSuse users complaining that KDE support is no where near as good as the Suse of old. Think about it – Novell owns Suse. Novell owns Ximian. Novell employes Miguel and Nat. Migel and Nat founded the Gnome project, and they also founded Ximian. Is it any wonder why Novell (and Suse) is focusing more on Gnome? It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to put 1 and 1 together.

I personally won’t touch Suse, I was very badly burnt by them several years ago, and their support was atrocious. After that fracas, I swore to never use a Suse product again (or recommend it for that matter). I’d much prefer a Debian system, Debian treats everything equally, no favouring one desktop over another because of monetary considerations.

“”” but big players like Redhat and Novell want to tailor and customise KDE to suit their needs, and I think you’ll find (unless I’m very much mistaken) that they then need to pay licensing fees to Trolltech. “””

You’re mistaken. QT is GPL… period.

As long as the resulting works are either not distributed, or are distributed in a way compatible with GPL (just like with *any* GPL’d software), they are following the license and owe no licensing fees.

I think you are confusing “(non)commercial” with “GPL”. RedHat and Novell are distributing their modified versions of KDE as OSS.

I, personally, think it is the attention that Gnome has paid to usability for average (not computer savvy) people that is the attraction for the distros.

Smaller distros, on the other hand, are attracted to KDE because it is easier to maintain in a distro.

If KDE ever really took usability for non-techs seriously, with formal usability testing and the whole bit, they could make a real killing.

Of course, their current users would hate them for it.

[i]Yes, but big players like Redhat and Novell want to tailor and customise KDE to suit their needs, and I think you’ll find (unless I’m very much mistaken) that they then need to pay licensing fees to Trolltech.[i]

Yes, you are very much mistaken. Qt is GPL and the KDE libs are LGPL/BSD, so they can tailor and customize KDE all they want. Big or small players don’t matter, GPL is equal for everyone. And Qt has been GPL for a vrlo long time, since KDE 2(And KDE libs have always been LGPL/BSD). So please stop spreading such nonsens, it’s way overdue do bury that crap.

And when it comes to paying for Qt, SuSe(From before it became part of the big Novell) had no problem whatsover with the licensing fees. Remember the gem of Suse, YaST was originally a closed source application requiring a Qt license. And when they relicensed it as GPL, license cost was not even mentioned as one of the reasons. So that’s simply a red herring.

I’ve read many Suse/OpenSuse users complaining that KDE support is no where near as good as the Suse of old. Think about it – Novell owns Suse. Novell owns Ximian. Novell employes Miguel and Nat. Migel and Nat founded the Gnome project, and they also founded Ximian. Is it any wonder why Novell (and Suse) is focusing more on Gnome? It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to put 1 and 1 together.

No, you’ll find most Suse users happy that Novell is continuing with such strong support of KDE. More attention was placed on KDE in 10.2 than in Gnome, particularly compared to the 10.1 release.

Novell’s initial decision regarding Gnome was unfortunately the spark that ignited the whole “Gnome is the enterprise desktop” argument, despite KDE’s dominance particularly with commercial distros.

Yet the fact that Novell has retreated from that decision is not one that is discussed as much. Their initial decision to recant and claim both desktops will be supported had nothing to do with outcry from the community, it was from their actual customers. Their customer base was mostly inherited from Suse, which meant it was very predominantly KDE.

The resurgence of KDE development by Novell, particularly with the work in Suse 10.2, is also noteworthy. Work on things like the new KDE menu was not done just for the benefit of the community, they will be rolled up into SP1 as a feature-pack upgrade for SLED. KDE is very much alive and kicking at Novell, despite Nat and Miguel’s best efforts.

Heck, I even had a buddy that worked at Novell and his dual-boot laptop defaulted to KDE when we was in linux.

The only major linux player focused almost exclusively on Gnome is Red Hat, and they are the only major player that has openly stated that the linux desktop(tm) will never happen anyways. So that’s not exactly an overwhelming endorsement.

Of the freedesktops, KDE is probably the most flexible and widely supported. With KDE 4.0, that support will even include Windows and OSX for application portability, since Qt will run natively on both of those. KDE is stronger than ever. Novell, as the vendor with the strongest stated intent in desktop adoption, cannot afford to ignore that momentum.

But as always, vive le choice.

The only major linux player focused almost exclusively on Gnome is Red Hat, and they are the only major player that has openly stated that the linux desktop(tm) will never happen anyways. So that’s not exactly an overwhelming endorsement.

When and where did Red Hat say that? I find it hard to believe they’d ever make such a sweeping proclamation. Would appreciate a link if you have one to such statements.

When and where did Red Hat say that? I find it hard to believe they’d ever make such a sweeping proclamation. Would appreciate a link if you have one to such statements.

Ok, I was being a bit tongue in cheek. The “(tm)” was supposed to be a reference to this generic idea that desktop linux will become a viable replacement for Windows. Red Hat does not subscribe to that theory, they stopped pursuing standard desktop-type solutions with RH9, and gave birth to Fedora as a community-led but non-supported project.

If you scroll down you’ll see the following question:

Some people have always thought the real success of Linux would be if it could challenge Microsoft on the desktop. But that doesn’t seem to be Red Hat’s focus.

I used to stand up in front of Linux crowds and say, “Linux will never be successful on the desktop,” and of course I’d get booed off the stage. And I finally realized the mistake I was making. Linux will not be successful on the PC replacing Windows OS. But we absolutely will be successful on the desktop as a geographic location.

Think about what’s the killer app that’s taken us as far as we’ve gone — because people don’t buy operating systems, they buy applications. Well, the killer app that has driven this model is the Internet itself. When you get a collaborative application — which is the Internet where that collaboration is essential to the value of the network — then in order for all the players on that network to play fair with each other it has to be open source technology. The moment one company owns a protocol on the Internet, the Internet will fail. It’ll be all over. The bulk of the value will disappear.

He’s basically proposing that the desktop doesn’t matter, the network is the new killer application. Hence Red Hat’s focus on server and server-based application platforms, with less of an emphasis on pure desktop adoption.

I don’t actually necessarily disagree with that position, nor do I agree with the idea that linux can or should even try to be a drop-in replacement for Windows.

But in any discussion of desktop linux, with the emphasis of making the desktop itself relevant rather than a simple tool for accessing the network or using workstation-type utilities, then Red Hat has bowed out for now. In the context of the discussion, going back to the “Gnome is the enterprise choice” argument, I was merely pointing out that Red Hat’s decision to use Gnome is likely pragmatic and not strategic.

Here’s an interview with Bob Young from 2002

Thanks for the link, was interesting.

But in any discussion of desktop linux, with the emphasis of making the desktop itself relevant rather than a simple tool for accessing the network or using workstation-type utilities, then Red Hat has bowed out for now.

Is any major player seriously going after the home desktop market? Even though Red Hat may not be pursuing such sales, i’m not convinced it means we should think less of Gnome. Don’t forget Red Hat’s desktop work with Fedora, where they continue to improve and promote Gnome. They haven’t really bowed out at all.

Is any major player seriously going after the home desktop market? Even though Red Hat may not be pursuing such sales, i’m not convinced it means we should think less of Gnome. Don’t forget Red Hat’s desktop work with Fedora, where they continue to improve and promote Gnome. They haven’t really bowed out at all.

I agree about the home market, personally I don’t think it’s viable at this point.

But the point I was basically making was not so much to say that people should think less of Gnome as a viable desktop. Rather, it was to say don’t think less of KDE as a viable desktop just because Red Hat, among others, defaults to Gnome. That’s a popular flawed argument that is brought up frequently.

I like KDE and part of my job at work is supporting it for our network. That said, for a little while now I’ve found myself disliking just about every “tweaked” up version of it that various distros were putting out. Simple vanilla, compiled straight from source KDE was what I liked. Until openSUSE 10.2…

This one’s got me really impressed. It finally looks like the SUSE folks (well, at least the openSUSE folks) have went back to putting the polish on the desktop that distro was formerly best known for. They appear to have taken some of thought of what has gone into the ximianized/novellized version of GNOME in SLED (largely unchanged it seems in openSUSE)and brought it into KDE, but all with it’s own unique slant and implementation. The end result is highly functional, still customizable, and rather pretty to boot.

Have to admit, I really thought the new menu was stupid for the first little bit, but using it further I think it’s just about the right balance between functinality, unclutteredness and ease of use (I have some minor quibble with it, but overall for me it works).

I don’t mind so much that the Novell folks have been pouring resources into their GNOME, but it’s really nice to see KDE getting some love over there again.

Gtk+ is the foundation for Gnome, and frankly, that foundation has collapsed …. I believe that there’s nothing that can be done for Gtk+

One developer speaks out and asks for more GTK love, and suddenly the foundation for Gnome has collapsed and there’s nothing people can do about it?

Both projects have problems.

It’s true that GTK+ sux But it doesn’t stop me from using Gnome. Gnome itself is ok. All it needs is a unified control panel and a better menu editor. Oh, and more options… like KDE. I prefer control over simplicity.

On the other side, QT is ok. The only things that really annoy me are the redrawing issues. Interfaces built with QT flicker all the time. It feels like Win95 on a 386 Anyway, GTK is not better. Most windows resize themselves when text labels change size. How weird is that…

Anyway, KDE is great too. It just needs better artwork and more polish. KDE4?

I have worked on both GUIs GNOME and KDE, and on a 24/7 pattern with a file/other servers. I can tell you that on both cases they crashed regularly when networking was saturated and you start to use xine to play a .avi file with 1080p specs.

With GNOME the situation is a little bit worse as the whole GUI sometimes restarts much like windows explorer.exe restart when it crashes, but both nautilus and konqueror crash frequently under heavy load and under many mount points that goes offline but again nautilus crashes much frequently than konqueror, that’s why I log on gnome but use all the tools of kde instead once inside (konqueror, konsole, kxxx,…).

Linux in general is good but buggy for desktop use for server work is very good (solaris being excellent) and as a workstation you can only depend on it if you are experienced with CLI rather than GUI if not then MacOSX is you paradise.

The fact that Linux is such a strong OS from the CLI also limits its adoption as many “primary” desktopss.

If you have a Linux desktop and you need to use some GUI apps for Windows, it is a pain.

If you are on a Windows desktop and need a decent command line, you can just putty into a Linux box and it works fine.

The OS installed on my work machine is Windows, but I do most of my work in a bunch of other OS’s usually.

can we stop saying that KDE is difficult or hard because it is so customizable, both DE’s are very good, in my Opinion KDE being better, does Gnome have something as good as Superkaramba

everyone knows that QT is the BEST. End of story, how can you compare an underfunded and undermanned toolkit to QT.

the sooner we can switch more people to QT the better.

“can we stop saying that KDE is difficult or hard because it is so customizable, both DE’s are very good,[…]”

Indeed, they are, and KDE surely is not difficult or hard, especially not because of it’s ability to be customizable. I completely agree.

“[…] in my Opinion KDE being better, does Gnome have something as good as Superkaramba”

As far as I can remember, the use of Superkaramba is not restricted to KDE, but it uses some libraries KDE offers, and, it is part of the KDE distribution since version 3.5 and will be part of Plasma in version 4.0. So you can use it with Gnome as long as KDE libs’n’stuff are installed.

For Gnome, you can use gdesklet (which can be used with KDE, Fluxbox or XFCE as well). It offers the same functionalities. At this point, I won’t argument if it’s better, faster, more coloful or more intuitive because I’ve not used Superkaramba or gdesklet. So you may want to try it out for yourself and see if you can like it.

So the answer should be: Yes, Gnome has something as good as Superkaramba.

“everyone knows that QT is the BEST. “

You should complete your sentence in a way like “is the best za [insert something]”. But where do you take the term “everyone” from? Who do you mean with “everyone”?

Refer to expression logic: Throwing around claims with allquantificaion (“everyone”) and absolute attributes (“the best”) leaves you on a point where you are not able to proof what you say, but allows others to proof you completely wrong very easily (by only one anti-example).

“End of story, how can you compare an underfunded and undermanned toolkit to QT.”

The amount of maintainers / developers does not say anything about the quality of their software. Nor does the amount of money you stuff into it.

Let me tell you this: If you’re developing software for special purposes (remember: I did not say “for everyday applications designed for school kids”, well educated scientists will use software built for them after their instructions and honoring their requirements), you may have the situation explicitly not to choose Qt, maybe because of its license, of its requirements or its restrictions. There are some situations where you intentionally decide to choose Gtk because it fits best for your needs (as a programmer) and the ones of the users of the program you’re going to develop. From my experience, Gtk has the advantage of being available on many platforms, may be interfaced with C, has some “OO like’ features even in C, does not need a macro compiler, and is licensed very free. Actually, I used it for developing medical diagnostics software for clinical use where Linux, BSD and Solaris based systems will be used. I’m sure I don’t want to do it using Qt. Not that Qt is not good enough, but it’s not good for this speacial project. For another one, it may fit well.

So please see this: It’s always the question what you want to do with a certain toolkit, Gtk, Gtk+, Qt or any other one. It depends on the case what you need. So let me state it unmisunderstandable: Qt is not the best.

“the sooner we can switch more people to QT the better.”

O da. The old crux. I will preface this comment by disclosing: I used to swear by Gnome, but now have switched to neither.

These days, I use Fluxbox, and pick-n-choose the best app’s for my task at a given time. I find Gnome products to universally look better, yes? Particularly the panel however, it seems time-and-time again I am using KDE based programs in my daily life. I’ve also found the GTK2/Gnome file-menu’s to be atrocious, though that is another debate ( http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=16771 ).

It seems that the likes of Apollon, Krusader/Konqueror, Yammi (woot!), and to some extent, Kopete have slowly taken over my daily rituals though, it’s my contention that unified desktop environments are mere crutches for new users — those of us who desire the best tools for the job will naturally select the likes of Opera, aMSN, etc., the best from Gnome, the best from KDE, and run those anyway who cares about looks or interfaces – I dare anyone to present to me a unified interaction method that is ideal for all programs. It does not exist.

So while my favouritism is for Gnome, my uses more KDE, I must say it is a rather useless distinction (beyond the default packaging of distro’s) as to which holds better – both forward quality programs, use what’s best, as they can co-exist.

Not because Gnome sucks — it doesn’t. There’s a lot to like about Gnome.

I use it because it comes with applications I like, especially the KStars planetarium program. Now, I can install the KDElibs in Gnome and use it there, but there’s another issue:

I like to have KStars handy when at the telescope, so I can quickly reference, log, and choose viewing targets. That means my laptop is running in the dark. I need to maintain dark adaption to view faint objects.

KStars has a “night vision mode” that turns its screen red, which is easy on the eyes in the dark. However, it doesn’t do you any good if the Window Manager borders can’t be adjusted to match!

I can’t adjust those colors properly in Gnome. In KDE, it’s easy to do, and my night vision is saved. Also, KStars simply works more smoothly and looks better in its native KDE.

It’s not about being a “tuning freak”, it’s about having an environment that lets you do what you need to do, and set things up in the way that’s most useful to you.

I got used to the KDE way, and admittedly it’s a bit more complex than Gnome — but not extremely so.

And it turns out I like Konqueror better than Firefox — most of the time. It’s not as fast, but it’s very stable. During those occasional times when Firefox is the better choice, it’s easily available.

It’s all about your own comfort level. KDE matches mine. Gnome is great for others. I like the fact that Linux lets us choose — and I’ll take either one over Windows, or even OS X.

same thing for me….. there are better software for kde…

like konqueror, kmail, kopete, koffice k3b, k9copy, kdevelop, quanta…… and kde ui is more consistent then gnome

“KDE is good for tuning freaks (like the author, as you can see). Gnome has simplicity and coherency all over, it’s easier to use than KDE.”

That’s what I used to think – before I tried Kubuntu Edgy. I shunned KDE before, because of the numerous hard-to-find-out-what-they-do applications, the (consequently) overcrowded menus, etc. But the Kubuntu version is very clean, and feels right at home.

One more thing. Do not call someone a tuning freak, not even an enthusiast, for wanting to change the background, or the color of theme. Ikad. It is the absolute minimum the user should be able to do on a desktop, and it is very sad that Gnome does not provide one of these. I also wanted to do this, and ended up hacking the theme files. Ružan.

One more thing. Do not call someone a tuning freak, not even an enthusiast, for wanting to change the background, or the color of theme. Ikad. It is the absolute minimum the user should be able to do on a desktop, and it is very sad that Gnome does not provide one of these. I also wanted to do this, and ended up hacking the theme files. Ružan.

Changing the background is one thing, but changing the theme colors? Is that so important? In windows it´s only possible if you disable the theme engine and run with the classic style. Is there any other desktop with a themable interface that allows you to change individual theme colors but KDE?


20.11 Visualizing the partitioning of sum-of-squares

Let’s visualize the difference of the group means from the grand mean:

We can visualize the individual deviates around the group means as so:

Combined visualization

We can combine our three plots created above into a single figure using cowplot::plot_grid :


GetDC(NULL) gets primary monitor or virtual screen?

Looking around the net I see that most people think that GetDC(NULL) will get a device context for the entire primary monitor (the one with 0,0 at its top left). However, I get the feeling most people are just saying that because that's what the msdn page for GetDC moć be saying.

However, if you look at the following two pages (at least these two) seem to be saying that GetDC(NULL) returns a device context that covers the entire virtual screen (the one that encompasses every monitor attached to the system).

(1) https://www.microsoft.com/msj/0697/monitor/monitor.aspx -> search the page for "This gets the RECT of the virtual desktop" and look at the bits around that statement (particularly the GetDC(NULL) above it).

I have been trying to figure out which it really is, but the multitude of conflicting opinions defeats me.

Does anyone have any real experience of this, and can test it on a multimonitor system? (I only have one monitor so I can't.)

Does it get a DC covering the entire primary monitor OR a DC covering the entire virtual screen?

For anyone wanting to try it out, on my system, if I create a default project and put the following in WinMain it turns the screen black. If you have multiple monitors and you try it, the question becomes does it turn just your primary monitor black OR all your monitors?


Gledaj video: BIologija II - Etilen (Kolovoz 2022).