Computing desk
< November 12	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 13

Keyboard alphabets

Why are keyboard alphabets arranged in irregular way rather than being in alphabetic order ? Sunny Singh (DAV) (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See QWERTY. The design originated with early typewriters, and was somewhat driven by the need to make a separation on the keyboard between pairs of letters that commonly occur together, so as to reduce the incidence of typebar collision and jams. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the arrangement of keys for optimal typing efficiency isn't alphabetical, regardless of the device used. For example, one goal is to use each finger about the same amount, when touch typing. Ideally, if we could have planned it all from the start, we would have arranged the keyboard for optimal typing efficiency, and then set that order as the definition of alphabetical order. StuRat (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Dvorak Simplified Keyboard. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open source, but not for all?

Can a software be open source for Linux user, but not for Windows users? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Open sources" means that the source code is openly published. It is not related to how it is used. Ruslik_Zero 18:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Since different code is needed to run in the two environments, that code unique to Windows can be kept proprietary, while that code in common and unique to Linux is not. Of course, presumably most of the code is in common between the two, with only small bits needing customization by platform. Therefore, if somebody wanted to, they could take the Linux source and add the missing Windows portions to make it work there. StuRat (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also depends on exactly what is meant by "Open Source". For instance:

if something was licensed under the GPL you couldn't release another version containing the original code and also proprietary code as StuRat describes (because the new version would be derivative of the original and therefore would have to be released in its entirety under the GPL)
if something was released with a Modified BSD license the this would be OK

davidprior ^t/_c 20:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if it is your own code, you can release both the original version under the GPL, and a proprietary extended version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right enough! davidprior ^t/_c 21:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is, 100% your own code. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't matter if it's 100% your own code, what matters more is you have a copyright release/assignment or otherwise have permission from anyone who contributed code to release it under the other licence. And it's worth remembering that there are plenty of examples of software with both a GPL version and a proprietary version although the difference is usually in stuff other then OS support. Even more when we include other open source licences. And note as StuRat said, while you can do whatever you want with your proprietary version, you can't stop others releasing a GPL version using your GPL code to support Windows users. You could perhaps try to intentionally make this hard but that will often mean your code is poor. And note in case there's any confusion that being open source even GPL doesn't generally stop you selling the software whether for all or only certain users. Although if it is a copyleft licence like GPL, you usually have to include something like support otherwise people will simply fully legally get your software from other sources. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it doesn't matter if it's 100% your own code if you've made every contributor agree to their contributions being licensed the same as what is 100% your code. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by "open source" you mean "conforming to the principles outlined by the Open Source Initiative", then the answer is probably not. (If you're using a different definition of "open source", the answer depends on what definition you are using.) The Open Source Definition requires "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor", "License Must Not Restrict Other Software" and particularly "License Must Be Technology-Neutral". I don't know if there is an official pronouncement on the issue, but those terms would indicate that a license restricting use to Linux systems would probably disqualify it from official OSI recognition. You can certainly do things like release a Linux version under an Open Source license and the Windows version under some other license (or not at all), but I don't think you can restrict someone who has the Linux version from making and distributing their own Windows-usable derivative work from it while still being OSI-approved. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visual basic for MS Access

Due to decisions well beyond my control, a version "upgrade" of Access has been unleashed upon our office. In attempting to fix a different error, I appear to have introduced another one, and now I'm actually having to fix some code in a database I didn't create. I did C++ and Pascal back in the day, so I'm not completely computer illiterate, but I'm no expert. I'm attempting to do something extremely basic, which is have a button preview a report on screen, and having problems with syntax and the help isn't helping.

We'll call the report in question "Foo Bar Rhubarb" for the sake of argument. The system auto-completes:

Private Sub Inspections_Assigned_Click() End Sub I'm polevaulting to the conclusion that any actual code goes between those two statements. Based on MS's website help files (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317113) I'm getting the following syntax: oAccess.DoCmd.OpenReport(ReportName:="Foo Bar Rhubarb", _ View:=Access.AcView.acViewPreview)

That seems like it should be enough, but the editor immediately whines that it expects an "=" after the statement. I've tried entering just an "=" as well as an "="Foo Bar Rhubarb"" and the first results in a editor error and the second results in an error when trying to use the button.

I'm hoping I'm missing something idiotic, as this really shouldn't be that complicated. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been years since I did any Access/VB work, but do you know what the version of Access it used to use? What version did you upgrade to? The article you referenced I believe shows the 'newer' VB.NET syntax. Really old versions of Access used VBA which has a different syntax. (If this is the case, try removing the parenthesis. If that still doesn't work, I'm not sure if VBA supported named parameters.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Access 2010, which is part of my problem, I was looking at the help file for an old version. The new version has a macro system that allows you to bypass any direct manipulation of code, for which I am thankful because I always managed to mangle syntax. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no Access expert, but based on my experience with Visual Basic for Excel, I'd suggest the syntax: intReturn = oAccess.DoCmd.OpenReport(ReportName:="Foo Bar Rhubarb", _ View:=Access.AcView.acViewPreview) 80.195.151.245 (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You either need to remove the parens or add a return variable. VB is really picky about when it thinks you are calling a function versus a statement. If there are parens VB expects you to put the result into a variable. So in general it is result = object.Method(blah) or object.Method blah but never object.Method(blah). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portions of videos

A recent work for the university required me to record a video of myself giving an oral explanation of a certain topic. The academic part (the speech, the supporting elements, etc.) is done. However, as I was alone, I left the camera in a fixed place, recording it all, and stopped it when it was ready. Now I would need a cleanup of the video, removing some parts of it (the seconds when I go from the camera to my place, a part where I made a mistake and started the porton of the speech again, etc.) would need a free software to play the video and set checkpoints: from start to here, delete, from here to here, keep, etc; and then get a new video file with the portions I want. Which one do you suggest me? Cambalachero (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Operating System are you on ? StuRat (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP Cambalachero (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love VirtualDub and VirtualDubMod, once in a while I use Avidemux. See also Comparison of video editing software. Trio The Punch (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the help Cambalachero (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]