"Camino uses the same Gecko core as Firefox, but eschews the Firefox plugin madness in favor of OS X integration, supporting the OS X Services menu, Keychain, and all the other things that tie an OS X application into the body of OS X."
FF is meant to be customizable. If you want to use a plugin, you use it. If you don't - brace yourself - you don't have to. No one is twisting your arm.
The OS X environment - everything about it - is about removing customization from the picture. The Mac folks are the ones who decide what features are best, most useful, most necessary. Their vision of what the environment should be is the one that you must accept as best.
Want to do something else with your computer? Forget it. Why would you want to? If the Mac folks haven't envisioned it, it's worthless. No enhancements are necessary, or will be tolerated.
Want to use a little feature on your browser? What are you - a Heathen?
One does not need to have voted for Bush to be a Patriot. If that truly is your conception of Patriotism, then you are a real hindrance to your fellow Americans at very least...
If I buy a car, I may drive it on roads of my choosing.
If I buy a toothbrush, I may use it on my teeth, and I may use it to clean mold in the bathroom.
If I buy a case of prophylactics, I may use them to sheath my tool to prevent pregnancy and the spread of disease...or I may use them as kindling or road filler or packing material (whatever the Pope currently thinks is best).
With mp3s, I can and will make the use of them that best pleases me. As far as I'm concerned, Apple may sell me their mp3 player, but they may not decide what I do with the mp3, no sir.
The panel member Dennis Barr has offered some valuable comic relief. He is worried about the legality of playing back DVDs on OpenSUSE "in the corporate environment".
One hopes that he can watch The Shaggy Dog at work without getting thrown in the dungeon. In the meantime, avoid Linux, Rah Vista!
I think the internet should be cordoned off. On one side you can have the folks who get get their jollies out of seeing a metallic apple logo or an Adobe splash screen jump up every time they click something. It'll be easy to push ads through to these folks, because they'll hardly care what they're being asked to look at or use after their logolust is sated.
"What's that you say? There are existing webtools for editing photos? I would NEVER touch pixels without PS." "How's that? ADOBE HAS A NEW WEB APP? Where do I enter my CC info?"
Photoshop is great photo-editing software - the best.
For Web graphics, Fireworks is much better - more functional, more flexible, and with a much lighter footprint.
Fireworks is like a mix between Illustrator and Photoshop. You can use vector drawing tools and you can use bitmap drawing tools. You can do so without having to load behemoth programs that hog resources greedily.
If you're at all interested in efficiency, if you want to get the job done quickly, if flexibility sounds good to you...Fireworks ends up being a great option for web graphics.
Once again, for a print job, or for high resolution photo-editing, Illustrator and Photoshop are the best. They are capable of web graphics, however clumsily, but why not use the right tool?
A stripped-down, ad-strewn Photoshop? Why? For what reason? For the tasks that I'd want Photoshop, I want it to be fully powered. If there are lesser tasks, there are far and away more efficient tools.
If they follow this by pulling the plug on Fireworks, which I wouldn't put past them, then they will be doing themselves and us a great disservice.
EMI, and the others obsessed with maintaining their current profit model, simply cannot win in the long term. All they are doing is wasting their money to protect an asset that cannot be protected.
What they must inevitably do is innovate. In a 5 second thought process, I came up with this idea:
Instead of seeking to make profits on shrink-wrapped products, they should actually invest in artists - help them tour more comfortably, give them resources to play their music, in short...stop screwing them at every turn.
While artists with integrity might be said to thrive off of adversity, is it really necessary to try to maintain Dickensian conditions for the vast majority of artists? I wonder if the thought has ever occurred to them...invest in their product, sell more units because their offerings improve.
Still and all, if execs had a creative bone in their bodies, I guess they'd be strumming guitars, instead of shuffling Benjis.
What a bevy of terminology anachronism you've uncovered.
A "graphics professional"? What's that? A "Designer" - what's that?
If someone only uses Adobe Products, then I'm guessing they don't ever touch HTML, much less CSS, Javascript, etc. etc. These are the folks who swear by Macs, and insist that the Mac environment is untouchable for "Graphics".
Most people who are employed to make websites of any description must create graphics, but they also must use all kinds of other tools. As I type "using other kinds of tools", I look disparagingly at the Mac platform...I must do so.
A true "Web Professional" has to do all kinds of things...the more you have to do, the less tenable the Mac Platform inevitably becomes. Sorry, but those are the facts.
A "Web Professional" that can only perform on the Mac Platform while using only Adobe Products is a glorified Poster Designer.
Meanwhile, every "Graphics Program" available for the Mac is also available for Windows, and works 99.99% identically - the difference being, Mac folks have to hold a key down while they click while the rest of the world right-clicks.
Perhaps(?) it would be an exercise in futility to extol the virtues of word processing to you. Your use is hardly the issue, though...we're talking about how good the Word Processing application is. Google isn't shipping a text editor - they're shipping a word processor. The discussion proceeds from there - as in, how good is that word processor.
Maybe you author tomes with vim..maybe you dig canals with toothpicks, too. Neither of those have any friendly bearing on a discussion of word processors.
"What you'd be paying for is not the music, but the recommendations."
Good idea, but in practice, I never need recommendations of music from the recording industry.
Have a look at digg or other social networking sites. "Hot" stuff doesn't come from one guy's sifting process, it comes from a much broader user base. If you're going to do "recommending" online, then you need to do it freely, and flexibly.
RIAA "recommending" would be tantamount to Payola. I'd much rather check out a band that a friend recommended, or that a specific open user community recommended, than one that the RIAA groomed, programmed, and deployed.
Heck, let the RIAA recommend crap to consumers. Just don't let them aspire to nailing down the whole medium to their own liking. It has never worked, and it never will.
LOL
Gates: I coulda bin someone
Jobs: Well so could anyone - you stole my GUI from me...when I first found you
Gates: I kept it with me babe - I sold it as my own - can't DRM it all alone - I bilked the chumps around you
Slashdot Mirror
Quicktime and iTunes are not even remotely "better than anything else out there". Give the trolling a rest already.
Nvu is a viable Dreamweaver alternative.
http://www.nvu.com/index.php
Excellent point. What part of the Apple "experience" really lends itself to OSS? They're a black hole for OSS.
This thread is a shining, comedic gem.
I'm glad I turned my head from Apple before most of you hysterical folks got converted.
Who said word one about Mac/Windows? Not I. Easy, EASY, partner.
"Camino uses the same Gecko core as Firefox, but eschews the Firefox plugin madness in favor of OS X integration, supporting the OS X Services menu, Keychain, and all the other things that tie an OS X application into the body of OS X."
FF is meant to be customizable. If you want to use a plugin, you use it. If you don't - brace yourself - you don't have to. No one is twisting your arm.
The OS X environment - everything about it - is about removing customization from the picture. The Mac folks are the ones who decide what features are best, most useful, most necessary. Their vision of what the environment should be is the one that you must accept as best.
Want to do something else with your computer? Forget it. Why would you want to? If the Mac folks haven't envisioned it, it's worthless. No enhancements are necessary, or will be tolerated.
Want to use a little feature on your browser? What are you - a Heathen?
Excuse me, half-wit...
One does not need to have voted for Bush to be a Patriot. If that truly is your conception of Patriotism, then you are a real hindrance to your fellow Americans at very least...
So...AllOfMP3 wins!
Yep - very well and clearly stated.
If I buy a car, I may drive it on roads of my choosing.
If I buy a toothbrush, I may use it on my teeth, and I may use it to clean mold in the bathroom.
If I buy a case of prophylactics, I may use them to sheath my tool to prevent pregnancy and the spread of disease...or I may use them as kindling or road filler or packing material (whatever the Pope currently thinks is best).
With mp3s, I can and will make the use of them that best pleases me. As far as I'm concerned, Apple may sell me their mp3 player, but they may not decide what I do with the mp3, no sir.
That's really the bottom line.
The panel member Dennis Barr has offered some valuable comic relief. He is worried about the legality of playing back DVDs on OpenSUSE "in the corporate environment".
One hopes that he can watch The Shaggy Dog at work without getting thrown in the dungeon. In the meantime, avoid Linux, Rah Vista!
I think the internet should be cordoned off. On one side you can have the folks who get get their jollies out of seeing a metallic apple logo or an Adobe splash screen jump up every time they click something. It'll be easy to push ads through to these folks, because they'll hardly care what they're being asked to look at or use after their logolust is sated.
"What's that you say? There are existing webtools for editing photos? I would NEVER touch pixels without PS."
"How's that? ADOBE HAS A NEW WEB APP? Where do I enter my CC info?"
Photoshop is great photo-editing software - the best.
For Web graphics, Fireworks is much better - more functional, more flexible, and with a much lighter footprint.
Fireworks is like a mix between Illustrator and Photoshop. You can use vector drawing tools and you can use bitmap drawing tools. You can do so without having to load behemoth programs that hog resources greedily.
If you're at all interested in efficiency, if you want to get the job done quickly, if flexibility sounds good to you...Fireworks ends up being a great option for web graphics.
Once again, for a print job, or for high resolution photo-editing, Illustrator and Photoshop are the best. They are capable of web graphics, however clumsily, but why not use the right tool?
A stripped-down, ad-strewn Photoshop? Why? For what reason? For the tasks that I'd want Photoshop, I want it to be fully powered. If there are lesser tasks, there are far and away more efficient tools.
If they follow this by pulling the plug on Fireworks, which I wouldn't put past them, then they will be doing themselves and us a great disservice.
How dare you question him? He's APPLE. Haven't you seen the commercials?
I'm sure "accruate" is perfectly valid - you just aren't hip to the usage.
EMI, and the others obsessed with maintaining their current profit model, simply cannot win in the long term. All they are doing is wasting their money to protect an asset that cannot be protected.
What they must inevitably do is innovate. In a 5 second thought process, I came up with this idea:
Instead of seeking to make profits on shrink-wrapped products, they should actually invest in artists - help them tour more comfortably, give them resources to play their music, in short...stop screwing them at every turn.
While artists with integrity might be said to thrive off of adversity, is it really necessary to try to maintain Dickensian conditions for the vast majority of artists? I wonder if the thought has ever occurred to them...invest in their product, sell more units because their offerings improve.
Still and all, if execs had a creative bone in their bodies, I guess they'd be strumming guitars, instead of shuffling Benjis.
It's redundant because of John Lydon. What part of his analysis of EMI didn't you understand? ;)
What a bevy of terminology anachronism you've uncovered.
A "graphics professional"? What's that?
A "Designer" - what's that?
If someone only uses Adobe Products, then I'm guessing they don't ever touch HTML, much less CSS, Javascript, etc. etc. These are the folks who swear by Macs, and insist that the Mac environment is untouchable for "Graphics".
Most people who are employed to make websites of any description must create graphics, but they also must use all kinds of other tools. As I type "using other kinds of tools", I look disparagingly at the Mac platform...I must do so.
A true "Web Professional" has to do all kinds of things...the more you have to do, the less tenable the Mac Platform inevitably becomes. Sorry, but those are the facts.
A "Web Professional" that can only perform on the Mac Platform while using only Adobe Products is a glorified Poster Designer.
Meanwhile, every "Graphics Program" available for the Mac is also available for Windows, and works 99.99% identically - the difference being, Mac folks have to hold a key down while they click while the rest of the world right-clicks.
Careful not to defame them, or we're both next.
Don't underestimate the Lawyered Gentry's sense of how much money the RIAA has. Once the blood is in the water, the feeding will begin.
Perhaps(?) it would be an exercise in futility to extol the virtues of word processing to you. Your use is hardly the issue, though...we're talking about how good the Word Processing application is. Google isn't shipping a text editor - they're shipping a word processor. The discussion proceeds from there - as in, how good is that word processor.
Maybe you author tomes with vim..maybe you dig canals with toothpicks, too. Neither of those have any friendly bearing on a discussion of word processors.
Sure, vim is a very good text editor. I thought we were talking about word processing, though?
sorry about the trailing slash, folks...and thanks to all who were able to figure out how to make the URL resolve!
This has probably been linked to on slashdot before, but this thread deserves it as well: http://negativland.com/albini.html/
"What you'd be paying for is not the music, but the recommendations."
Good idea, but in practice, I never need recommendations of music from the recording industry.
Have a look at digg or other social networking sites. "Hot" stuff doesn't come from one guy's sifting process, it comes from a much broader user base. If you're going to do "recommending" online, then you need to do it freely, and flexibly.
RIAA "recommending" would be tantamount to Payola. I'd much rather check out a band that a friend recommended, or that a specific open user community recommended, than one that the RIAA groomed, programmed, and deployed.
Heck, let the RIAA recommend crap to consumers. Just don't let them aspire to nailing down the whole medium to their own liking. It has never worked, and it never will.
LOL Gates: I coulda bin someone Jobs: Well so could anyone - you stole my GUI from me...when I first found you Gates: I kept it with me babe - I sold it as my own - can't DRM it all alone - I bilked the chumps around you
True enough...although there was a time where IE was viewed by practical folks as a de facto standard.