It's a beta. You don't get auto-updated to beta versions.
Yes, you do. But the auto-update is not activated until later on, usually a couple of days after having the new version available through direct download.
Most likely we need a 'For Dummies' section of the community docs that explains cut'npaste on terminals and other such things you need to know in order to follow directions properly.
and educating the users in the potential dangers of executing untrusted commands. Remember, simple users don't know what a command does, but they'll gladly copy and paste them if you tell them to.
1) The person giving the directions might be more familiar with the command line. If you assume power users are going to use the command line, who exactly are you hoping to ask for advice?
I know open source involves a lot of volunteering, and you're right, most people helping out are likely power Linux users that are most comfortable using the command line. This doesn't make it right, though. There's a reason that support staff is usually very different from dev staff in any professional software firm. It's all about knowing how to treat your user respectfully and very patiently, assuming no knowledge whatsoever. This is very hard to do, and I know this because I've handled support for some of my projects, but it's also essential. There has to be a place where you can get the help you need and you expect, and messing with the command line is certainly unexpected for most users.
2) More importantly, GNU/Linux distributions are very customizable/configurable (snip) For Kubuntu it's the "K-Button"... Adept... several other changes... added or removed steps, etc. What? You use Xubuntu? (snip) "sudo apt-get install foo" will "Just Work(TM)", meanwhile mitigating the Not-Enough-Information-Given-With-The-Question Syndrome that is so frustratingly common in tech forums.
That's a very good point, and I agree that giving support to such a diverse ecosystem is potentially a nightmare, and that offering the CLI solution is the one way to be sure to get it right.
This diversity is one of the greatest weaknesses and strengths of the Linux ecosystem, and I don't see how that can change in any way. It can be mitigated, though, with marketing, which was the initial topic anyway. I think Canonical has made a very good effort in strengthening the Ubuntu brand, making it easier to identify. So people asking for support at forums will say "I use Ubuntu", "I use Kubuntu", etc. Not ideal, but a little better. I would expect that Canonical would provide solutions to common support issues for all their Ubuntu flavors without resorting to the CLI, but I may be wrong.
If someone isn't interested in putting the effort into searching a little or deciding to pick up a few basic CLI commands, maybe understanding and learning about their computer isn't as important to them as you think, in which case the old Copy & Paste might be the best answer anyway.
As I mentioned in a different comment, I think this is a dangerous culture to promote. Having people copy/pasting commands without knowing what they're doing? Think about it.
Maybe you think that the current culture of avoiding command line consoles is wrong, but starting a culture of "just copy this and run it in your console blindly" is just plain stupid and irresponsible.
It doesn't matter if that's easier or faster for you, it matters if it's easier for most people (faster is good but not absolutely necessary).
Typing cryptic commands is very error-prone and disconcerting for users. You may think that the "click blah blah" instructions are long and complicated, but for most users it's what makes the most sense, and they have at least a slight idea of what's going on.
Only because they know less about him than even your average American.
That's debatable. Lots of us are actually much better informed about the candidates than the average American. I'd posit that the average American sees this race in black and white (or red and blue, if you prefer).
There was exactly zero technical details about why it would be tricky on a Mac. So that wasn't an excuse at all.
I'd say that's exactly why it constitutes an excuse and not a fact. I apologize for the poor reference, this problem has been mentioned in several posts by Mozilla employees, but nobody has really delved into the technical specifics. I don't know much about Mac OS myself, so I can't comment on it.
All I'm saying is that there is something that may make it difficult to implement cross-platform process separation in tabs.
So, no, it seems their relationship remains strong. Google Chrome sounds like a very cool project, but I'm thinking that it'll be more of an experiment than an actual product, just like most things Google make.
Also, I doubt Mozilla would have a hard time finding funding even if Google pulls the plug on them.
Yes, that's kind of the point. Plugins should run in some kind of sandbox that prevent the parent program from crashing. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but that is certainly the way to go. I remember reading somewhere that the plugin architecture in Firefox was going to be modified to support something like this, but I don't have the reference at hand.
It'd be great, but it's unlikely to happen any time soon. IE is still the dominant browser, and YouTube can't just avoid their major audience.
The first big step is to get Microsoft to support the audio and video tags, so that we can eventually be free from Flash for those specific cases. But since they are now pushing Silverlight, I think it's very unlikely.
And here I thought Slashdot was a place were intelligent people discussed things with reasoning and an open mind instead of throwing feces around like typical forum trolls... yeah, yeah, I must be new here.
I can see lots of people complaining about the feature, that's pretty obvious, but that's hardly a measure that merits saying something that seems to indicate that the majority (or a large body) of people agree with that stance. My point is that people should make a distinction between fact and opinion, and I don't think that is too much too ask.
Having said that, yeah, my comment was a little obnoxious.
I see what you mean but, again, I think it's very different to have your cat shown on Google, one of the most popular Internet resources available, than to have some random site put up by your neighbor with a webcam showing you in the nude.
You can't ignore the fact that Google is THE place to look for information, and if someone wants to see how your house looks like, or if they want to try and see if there's a picture of you picking up the paper in the morning, Google is probably the first place they'll try.
Is it worse to be discredited in a local newspaper, or to appear making a ridiculous face on a national or even worldwide publication? I guess it's a matter of personal preference, but I think this is the key of what has changed. Personal privacy used to be limited to a small set of people physically close to you. Now that this has changed, we need to find a way to cope with the fact that any picture or video made locally, may be published for everyone else to see.
I personally don't have a problem with this, since I know better than to do anything private where everyone can see, but I can understand why some people feel that their privacy is being violated. It's because it wasn't like that before.
So you'd rather have him stubbornly maintain his stance and not get elected? How much can he accomplish in the future if he loses?
I don't know if that is really what he thinks, but I think it is a matter of weighing scenarios. What is worse, passing an obviously corrupt bill, or allowing another 8 years of Republican leadership, probably producing hundreds or bills like this one?
Slashdot Mirror
Que?
[citation needed]
That pretty much sums up religion in a nutshell.
Bravo, sir. +6.
Huh?
Yes, you do. But the auto-update is not activated until later on, usually a couple of days after having the new version available through direct download.
Most likely we need a 'For Dummies' section of the community docs that explains cut'npaste on terminals and other such things you need to know in order to follow directions properly.
and educating the users in the potential dangers of executing untrusted commands. Remember, simple users don't know what a command does, but they'll gladly copy and paste them if you tell them to.
1) The person giving the directions might be more familiar with the command line. If you assume power users are going to use the command line, who exactly are you hoping to ask for advice?
I know open source involves a lot of volunteering, and you're right, most people helping out are likely power Linux users that are most comfortable using the command line. This doesn't make it right, though. There's a reason that support staff is usually very different from dev staff in any professional software firm. It's all about knowing how to treat your user respectfully and very patiently, assuming no knowledge whatsoever. This is very hard to do, and I know this because I've handled support for some of my projects, but it's also essential. There has to be a place where you can get the help you need and you expect, and messing with the command line is certainly unexpected for most users.
2) More importantly, GNU/Linux distributions are very customizable/configurable (snip) For Kubuntu it's the "K-Button" ... Adept ... several other changes ... added or removed steps, etc. What? You use Xubuntu? (snip) "sudo apt-get install foo" will "Just Work(TM)", meanwhile mitigating the Not-Enough-Information-Given-With-The-Question Syndrome that is so frustratingly common in tech forums.
That's a very good point, and I agree that giving support to such a diverse ecosystem is potentially a nightmare, and that offering the CLI solution is the one way to be sure to get it right.
This diversity is one of the greatest weaknesses and strengths of the Linux ecosystem, and I don't see how that can change in any way. It can be mitigated, though, with marketing, which was the initial topic anyway. I think Canonical has made a very good effort in strengthening the Ubuntu brand, making it easier to identify. So people asking for support at forums will say "I use Ubuntu", "I use Kubuntu", etc. Not ideal, but a little better. I would expect that Canonical would provide solutions to common support issues for all their Ubuntu flavors without resorting to the CLI, but I may be wrong.
If someone isn't interested in putting the effort into searching a little or deciding to pick up a few basic CLI commands, maybe understanding and learning about their computer isn't as important to them as you think, in which case the old Copy & Paste might be the best answer anyway.
As I mentioned in a different comment, I think this is a dangerous culture to promote. Having people copy/pasting commands without knowing what they're doing? Think about it.
Oh, really? Wow, you're so 1337, thanks!
Maybe you think that the current culture of avoiding command line consoles is wrong, but starting a culture of "just copy this and run it in your console blindly" is just plain stupid and irresponsible.
sudo rm -rf /
It doesn't matter if that's easier or faster for you, it matters if it's easier for most people (faster is good but not absolutely necessary).
Typing cryptic commands is very error-prone and disconcerting for users. You may think that the "click blah blah" instructions are long and complicated, but for most users it's what makes the most sense, and they have at least a slight idea of what's going on.
Only because they know less about him than even your average American.
That's debatable. Lots of us are actually much better informed about the candidates than the average American. I'd posit that the average American sees this race in black and white (or red and blue, if you prefer).
There was exactly zero technical details about why it would be tricky on a Mac. So that wasn't an excuse at all.
I'd say that's exactly why it constitutes an excuse and not a fact. I apologize for the poor reference, this problem has been mentioned in several posts by Mozilla employees, but nobody has really delved into the technical specifics. I don't know much about Mac OS myself, so I can't comment on it.
All I'm saying is that there is something that may make it difficult to implement cross-platform process separation in tabs.
There is no excuse for a modern browser to not have this, especially in light of the fact that their main competitor (IE) is developing it.
Here's one excuse: complications when trying to have multiple processes render content on a single window in Mac OS X (mentioned near the end of the tab process isolation section).
It's not clear to me if this is impossible or really difficult to achieve, but I think it'll be interesting to see what Chrome does for Mac OS X.
Does that mean that their relationship with Mozilla will be ending?
Google recently renewed their monetary agreement with Mozilla for 3 more years.
So, no, it seems their relationship remains strong. Google Chrome sounds like a very cool project, but I'm thinking that it'll be more of an experiment than an actual product, just like most things Google make.
Also, I doubt Mozilla would have a hard time finding funding even if Google pulls the plug on them.
If you are worried over accessibility, HTML may not be the media for you.
Right, who cares about accessibility in the World Wide Web anyway?
FFS...
Yes, that's kind of the point. Plugins should run in some kind of sandbox that prevent the parent program from crashing. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but that is certainly the way to go. I remember reading somewhere that the plugin architecture in Firefox was going to be modified to support something like this, but I don't have the reference at hand.
It'd be great, but it's unlikely to happen any time soon. IE is still the dominant browser, and YouTube can't just avoid their major audience.
The first big step is to get Microsoft to support the audio and video tags, so that we can eventually be free from Flash for those specific cases. But since they are now pushing Silverlight, I think it's very unlikely.
How would Mozilla developers fix a crash in closed-source Adobe code?
They may not be able to fix the problem, but at the very least they should be able to prevent Flash from crashing Firefox.
And here I thought Slashdot was a place were intelligent people discussed things with reasoning and an open mind instead of throwing feces around like typical forum trolls... yeah, yeah, I must be new here.
I can see lots of people complaining about the feature, that's pretty obvious, but that's hardly a measure that merits saying something that seems to indicate that the majority (or a large body) of people agree with that stance. My point is that people should make a distinction between fact and opinion, and I don't think that is too much too ask.
Having said that, yeah, my comment was a little obnoxious.
That's probably a duplicate of other bugs that have already been resolved. The answer seems to be "yes" for providing a way to disable this behavior.
a large part of which does not like this behavior
Reference, please.
FWIW, they are planning to allow the option to bring back the old behavior. It's already in the trunk, so it will probably make it to 3.1.
Concern? Their collapsed server is now more secure than it has ever been!
Thanks!
A/C
Are you admitting to replying to your own A/C post, or did you forget to click a certain checkbox? :P
Not A/C
I see what you mean but, again, I think it's very different to have your cat shown on Google, one of the most popular Internet resources available, than to have some random site put up by your neighbor with a webcam showing you in the nude.
You can't ignore the fact that Google is THE place to look for information, and if someone wants to see how your house looks like, or if they want to try and see if there's a picture of you picking up the paper in the morning, Google is probably the first place they'll try.
Is it worse to be discredited in a local newspaper, or to appear making a ridiculous face on a national or even worldwide publication? I guess it's a matter of personal preference, but I think this is the key of what has changed. Personal privacy used to be limited to a small set of people physically close to you. Now that this has changed, we need to find a way to cope with the fact that any picture or video made locally, may be published for everyone else to see.
I personally don't have a problem with this, since I know better than to do anything private where everyone can see, but I can understand why some people feel that their privacy is being violated. It's because it wasn't like that before.
I think part of the point is that
your neighboors != anyone with Internet access
Pft... wake me up when it can play free music.
I have no shame.
So you'd rather have him stubbornly maintain his stance and not get elected? How much can he accomplish in the future if he loses?
I don't know if that is really what he thinks, but I think it is a matter of weighing scenarios. What is worse, passing an obviously corrupt bill, or allowing another 8 years of Republican leadership, probably producing hundreds or bills like this one?