the compliment of contextual menus is a recent (1998) addition
Four years would be recent in some industries. Personal computers is not one of them.
the goal at Apple has always been to deign the simplest interface to the task at hand, and one button is the simplest interface to most action tasks.
With a one button mouse, you have to control-click to get the popup menu. With two buttons, you just click. Now which is more complicated? Not only is the right-click easier on the wrists and less error-prone, but it is a de facto standard across most Unix GUIs as well as Windows.
This changes in software like Maya, where contextual menus can be and are heavily used. The second and third buttons allow quick and easy access to commands too numerous to be assigned easy key combinations of one-click buttons. Apple shows their extensive interface knowledge here too; they don't handicap the user by requiring a one-button mouse, but instead allow users with more experience and knowledge to easily add pointing/action devices that take advantages of additional software capabilities.
Finally, someone answers my original question! I have to say, that's about the best solution I could come up with.
Most Macintosh customers are repeat customers. Switching to a two-button mouse requires a complete re-intuiting of the interface to these new users (what's the second button for?).
This is just an excuse for stagnation. What else has Apple done that required a reintuiting of the interface? MultiFinder, System 7, Copland, OS X...
In any case, we are in agreement on the ideal solution. I don't want to force people to have more mouse buttons than they can handle. But Apple should offer more than one mouse, at least both a single- and a double button. I am not the hugest fan of the scroll wheel, but it seems to be very popular, so maybe they should have one of those, too.
since when did anyone keep the mouse that came with their computer?
In the PC world, since they were able to choose which mouse came with their computer. I have thrown away a handful of 1-button Mac mice, but when I get a PC I just get the mouse I want in the first place.
I don't understand why people won't accept multiple buttons as an optional feature. It's flexibility: you don't have to use it, but someone might want to.
Why aren't you people complaining when Apple introduces a 17" iMac? After all, who needs a 17" iMac? Just get a 15" iMac and stick a 17" monitor in front of it!
Okay, I am probably going to get modded down for criticizing the Great All-Knowing Apple, Inc., but here you go...
If you read my question, it was why doesn't Apple make a 3-button mouse. Obviously, you can buy a third party mouse (in which case the 1-button mouse that shipped with your computer is just a waste of money).
I'm not saying make it standard: Apple offers plenty of options that wouldn't be needed by newbies (bigger hard drives, more memory, better video cards, gigabit Ethernet, SMP...), mice need be no different. Pay $15 more for another button or two...what's wrong with that?
What is completely mind-boggling is that the Mac OS has had a feature for years (contextual menus) that practically demands at least one more button, and that Mac zealots such as yourself continue to claim that they are better off with less flexibility.
There are a huge number of people out there who are buying a worthless single-button mouse every time they get a Mac, only to put it away in a drawer somewhere.
I remember Maya (on SGI) utilizing all three mouse buttons very extensively. How is the Mac version coping with the single button limitation?
More importantly, why doesn't Apple have a three button scrolling mouse yet? After 18 years of insisting that users *like* having their hands tied behind their back, isn't it time to admit they're just being stubborn? C'mon, Steve, we won't think any less of you.
In any case, good to see the Mac making headway in the graphics market it once dominated. Maybe it will reign again.
I know you seem pretty sure that you want one of those two (Postgres or SAP), but I don't think you should discount MySQL.
MySQL is considered (even by its detractors...and there are a lot of them!) to be much faster than the competition. While other RDBMS makers go on about "tradeoffs," the MySQL team has put their money where their mouths are and delivered a database that makes speed the top priority. This is vital in the enterprise.
Furthermore, the latest MySQL releases have full support for transactions and complete ACID compliance. MySQL also supports a greater and more useful subset of the SQL99 standard than either Postrgres or SAP.
I am by no means a MySQL zealot (though there are plenty who are, and you won't have to look far to find them), but I do think you should take all the options into account.
And Slashdot uses MySQL. Could you even ask for a more shining recommendation?
Any modern video card can easily outperform the perception of the human eye. IIRC, humans stop distinguishing framerates above 60fps or so. When are people going to stop believing the hype around these things?
This means that now all any government agency needs to do is set up a dummy corporation that's an "affiliate", and my phone company will give them unlimited access to all the data about me.
I wasn't too concerned over this until I read your response. One huge segment of phone calls is due to modem uses. And who are the primary users of modems these days? Why, the same people who won't shell out for a commercial OS, won't shell out for broadband, either: Linux users. Not to mention that a lot of Linux users and developers come from second- or third world countries like Finland, China, and France, where broadband isn't even available.
I wonder if this is just the next step in the government's War on Linux. First label us all hackers (now subject to life imprisonment), then monitor our Internet usage, finally force everyone to use DRM hardware and take away our rights.
Regexps are interesting, sure. Every CS student enjoys (or suffers through!) the regexp section of their Intro to Computability (or equivalent) course. And it is pretty fun thinking about the expressive power of, say (a|b)*a*b*.
However, we have to face the facts, that regexps, as good as they are from a mathematical standpoint at matching things, just aren't that helpful in sorting through the sea of data that is the Internet. The input data just aren't orderly enough for regexps to be of any use.
What has become useful is what Google taps into. And that is the human aspect. Data isn't important because it matches a*(b|c)a*. It's important because it is useful to people. Think about it: when you are looking for wares or porn, where do you go? Perl? Nope. IRC. Why? Because of the human element.
That is why research into regexps is doomed to failure. It is a dead end. From a theoretical standpoint, regexps are cute and interesting, but for serious data prowling, you need something with a brain and a heart.
While the point is well taken that technology has been used for more good than evil throughout history, we should not celebrate it blindly. Recall that such innovators as Henry Ford and Eli Whitney had worldviews that we would call racist and fascist today, and that Nazi Germany gave us advances in physics (via rocketry) and mathematics (encryption). The current crop of rogue hacker terrorists is just the latest iteration of this all-too-common archetype. Technology can be a great thing, but it shouldn't be worshipped without skepticism.
I propose a new anti-royalty slogan: "In 1776 we fought to rid America of royalty. Let's not bring it back." It uses the two definitions of "royalty" to add humor to the message, which is that royalties are unamerican. Thoughts?
America has the greatest programmers on Earth. We've produced the MacOS, Solaris, Java, Windows (hey, like M$ or not, Win2k is pretty stable), and Linux.
We should accept that other countries will come to us when they need something written. If they abuse our products to oppress people, then that is not our fault.
While I am as excited as the next geek about the new OpenGL spec, I'm worried about the impact on Linux.
No doubt Micro$hit has already incorporated OpenGL into Winblows X[tra]P[oopy]. But it will be months before the kernel hackers at Linux can reverse engineer it and cobble together a Linux driver.
I'm afraid that this kind of thing just drives people away from Linux. Rather than being dependent on these kinds of proprietary "standards," we should work on our own Open Source 3D standard and give it away as Free Software. We will not port it to Windows, and then we will get all of the game companies to write their games for it, and Linux will become the next big gaming platform.
I approve of any activity that gets criminals off the streets, even for just a few days.
if you didn't encrypt your communications, well, you've probably already paid the price
What is it they say about honor among thieves? At least there is some poetic justice in having all the hackers get together and attack each other rather than trying to steal credit card numbers from ordinary citizens. Maybe now that they know what it feels like, we can all breathe a little easier.
Hopefully, there were some undercover FBI agents there, too, and we'll see some arrests made in the coming weeks.
This is what some of us have been saying for years.
The single biggest threat to the success of Linux is the Linux zealot who reads Slashdot, thinks UserFriendly is funny, talks about Monty Python incessently, and recompiles his kernel daily. Windows has its geeks, too, but it also has a ton of normal people who get some fresh air once in a while and enjoy the company of other humans.
Slashdot should be working to counteract this, not by trying to become still more geeky and elitist, but by trying to attract a more middle-of-the-road audience. How about a Sports section, or a columnist who deals with issues that everyone cares about, like taxes?
Stallman is not a "stakeholder." No one is going to break into his house and solder a DRM chip onto his motherboard. If he doesn't want computers with DRM, then no one's going to force him to buy any.
Maybe the Dell Dude is now persuasive enough that his powers of resistence no longer have any effect.
Seriously, if enough of America is really that concerned with being allowed to pirate software and steal music, then the market will stop DRM for us.
Okay, I am as psyched about new MP sketches as the next slashdroid, but please let's not go advertising it.
Geekdom in general, and Linuxism in particular, are widely derided by the general public for being obsessed with the [admittedly brilliant] Monty Python comedy group. The programming language "Python" makes us look ridiculous enough.
I pray to Linus that none of my friends or family sees the front page of Slashdot while this story is running. They know I read Slashdot and read Linux, but I assure them it's all technical, and not in the least geeky and antisocial. If they see this, I'm doomed.
Please, Slashdot editors, take the reputation of Linux into account before running articles like this.
Hey, this sounded pretty cool at first. I mean, the more languages the better, right?;) Plus, I hate it when the Winblowz lusers get to play with pretty toys I can't get on my Linux boxen.
But then I reconsidered. First, a little background. C# was, is, and always will be, a Micro$oft invention. Like it did with SMB and OLE, not to mention DirectX and ZIP, M$ will have no reservations about mucking with C# just to break Mono compatibility.
In the case of SMB, we live with this. SMB has become a de facto standard in the enterprise, so Samba is forced to follow M$'s lead and keep up. But no such market forces exist for C#. Right now, it's a minority player against giants like Java and C++.
By supporting C# through Mono, Linux only serves to make it more popular. In doing so, it makes M$ more powerful. The Mono project is about as counterproductive toward Linux advancement as a Free Software project can be.:(
Ransom Love, Robert Love...it's no wonder no one trusts these guys with their money. Dick Stallman and Ed Raymond sound like good, dependable names, so that's something. But Linus? Andrea? We need some manlier-sounding kernel hackers.
Slashdot Mirror
We already fixed this problem when CompuServe freaked out about GIFs. We all use PNG now for everything.
Next.
the compliment of contextual menus is a recent (1998) addition
Four years would be recent in some industries. Personal computers is not one of them.
the goal at Apple has always been to deign the simplest interface to the task at hand, and one button is the simplest interface to most action tasks.
With a one button mouse, you have to control-click to get the popup menu. With two buttons, you just click. Now which is more complicated? Not only is the right-click easier on the wrists and less error-prone, but it is a de facto standard across most Unix GUIs as well as Windows.
This changes in software like Maya, where contextual menus can be and are heavily used. The second and third buttons allow quick and easy access to commands too numerous to be assigned easy key combinations of one-click buttons. Apple shows their extensive interface knowledge here too; they don't handicap the user by requiring a one-button mouse, but instead allow users with more experience and knowledge to easily add pointing/action devices that take advantages of additional software capabilities.
Finally, someone answers my original question! I have to say, that's about the best solution I could come up with.
Most Macintosh customers are repeat customers. Switching to a two-button mouse requires a complete re-intuiting of the interface to these new users (what's the second button for?).
This is just an excuse for stagnation. What else has Apple done that required a reintuiting of the interface? MultiFinder, System 7, Copland, OS X...
In any case, we are in agreement on the ideal solution. I don't want to force people to have more mouse buttons than they can handle. But Apple should offer more than one mouse, at least both a single- and a double button. I am not the hugest fan of the scroll wheel, but it seems to be very popular, so maybe they should have one of those, too.
since when did anyone keep the mouse that came with their computer?
In the PC world, since they were able to choose which mouse came with their computer. I have thrown away a handful of 1-button Mac mice, but when I get a PC I just get the mouse I want in the first place.
I don't understand why people won't accept multiple buttons as an optional feature. It's flexibility: you don't have to use it, but someone might want to.
Why aren't you people complaining when Apple introduces a 17" iMac? After all, who needs a 17" iMac? Just get a 15" iMac and stick a 17" monitor in front of it!
Okay, I am probably going to get modded down for criticizing the Great All-Knowing Apple, Inc., but here you go...
If you read my question, it was why doesn't Apple make a 3-button mouse. Obviously, you can buy a third party mouse (in which case the 1-button mouse that shipped with your computer is just a waste of money).
I'm not saying make it standard: Apple offers plenty of options that wouldn't be needed by newbies (bigger hard drives, more memory, better video cards, gigabit Ethernet, SMP...), mice need be no different. Pay $15 more for another button or two...what's wrong with that?
What is completely mind-boggling is that the Mac OS has had a feature for years (contextual menus) that practically demands at least one more button, and that Mac zealots such as yourself continue to claim that they are better off with less flexibility.
There are a huge number of people out there who are buying a worthless single-button mouse every time they get a Mac, only to put it away in a drawer somewhere.
Apple: where is the love?
I remember Maya (on SGI) utilizing all three mouse buttons very extensively. How is the Mac version coping with the single button limitation?
More importantly, why doesn't Apple have a three button scrolling mouse yet? After 18 years of insisting that users *like* having their hands tied behind their back, isn't it time to admit they're just being stubborn? C'mon, Steve, we won't think any less of you.
In any case, good to see the Mac making headway in the graphics market it once dominated. Maybe it will reign again.
I know you seem pretty sure that you want one of those two (Postgres or SAP), but I don't think you should discount MySQL.
MySQL is considered (even by its detractors...and there are a lot of them!) to be much faster than the competition. While other RDBMS makers go on about "tradeoffs," the MySQL team has put their money where their mouths are and delivered a database that makes speed the top priority. This is vital in the enterprise.
Furthermore, the latest MySQL releases have full support for transactions and complete ACID compliance. MySQL also supports a greater and more useful subset of the SQL99 standard than either Postrgres or SAP.
I am by no means a MySQL zealot (though there are plenty who are, and you won't have to look far to find them), but I do think you should take all the options into account.
And Slashdot uses MySQL. Could you even ask for a more shining recommendation?
Any modern video card can easily outperform the perception of the human eye. IIRC, humans stop distinguishing framerates above 60fps or so. When are people going to stop believing the hype around these things?
This means that now all any government agency needs to do is set up a dummy corporation that's an "affiliate", and my phone company will give them unlimited access to all the data about me.
I wasn't too concerned over this until I read your response. One huge segment of phone calls is due to modem uses. And who are the primary users of modems these days? Why, the same people who won't shell out for a commercial OS, won't shell out for broadband, either: Linux users. Not to mention that a lot of Linux users and developers come from second- or third world countries like Finland, China, and France, where broadband isn't even available.
I wonder if this is just the next step in the government's War on Linux. First label us all hackers (now subject to life imprisonment), then monitor our Internet usage, finally force everyone to use DRM hardware and take away our rights.
I'm scared.
Halo 8 stories high...a 30 foot soldier running around trying to figure out how to aim.
Regexps are interesting, sure. Every CS student enjoys (or suffers through!) the regexp section of their Intro to Computability (or equivalent) course. And it is pretty fun thinking about the expressive power of, say (a|b)*a*b*.
However, we have to face the facts, that regexps, as good as they are from a mathematical standpoint at matching things, just aren't that helpful in sorting through the sea of data that is the Internet. The input data just aren't orderly enough for regexps to be of any use.
What has become useful is what Google taps into. And that is the human aspect. Data isn't important because it matches a*(b|c)a*. It's important because it is useful to people. Think about it: when you are looking for wares or porn, where do you go? Perl? Nope. IRC. Why? Because of the human element.
That is why research into regexps is doomed to failure. It is a dead end. From a theoretical standpoint, regexps are cute and interesting, but for serious data prowling, you need something with a brain and a heart.
It was all a waste of time until the white man brought them pretzels, the One True Chocolate Vessel.
While the point is well taken that technology has been used for more good than evil throughout history, we should not celebrate it blindly. Recall that such innovators as Henry Ford and Eli Whitney had worldviews that we would call racist and fascist today, and that Nazi Germany gave us advances in physics (via rocketry) and mathematics (encryption). The current crop of rogue hacker terrorists is just the latest iteration of this all-too-common archetype. Technology can be a great thing, but it shouldn't be worshipped without skepticism.
I propose a new anti-royalty slogan: "In 1776 we fought to rid America of royalty. Let's not bring it back." It uses the two definitions of "royalty" to add humor to the message, which is that royalties are unamerican. Thoughts?
Yeah, and how much of the LZP are MQ?
I misread that as "Terminator 2: Angels in the Outfield." Wouldn't be a bad movie, though.
America has the greatest programmers on Earth. We've produced the MacOS, Solaris, Java, Windows (hey, like M$ or not, Win2k is pretty stable), and Linux.
We should accept that other countries will come to us when they need something written. If they abuse our products to oppress people, then that is not our fault.
While I am as excited as the next geek about the new OpenGL spec, I'm worried about the impact on Linux.
No doubt Micro$hit has already incorporated OpenGL into Winblows X[tra]P[oopy]. But it will be months before the kernel hackers at Linux can reverse engineer it and cobble together a Linux driver.
I'm afraid that this kind of thing just drives people away from Linux. Rather than being dependent on these kinds of proprietary "standards," we should work on our own Open Source 3D standard and give it away as Free Software. We will not port it to Windows, and then we will get all of the game companies to write their games for it, and Linux will become the next big gaming platform.
I approve of any activity that gets criminals off the streets, even for just a few days.
if you didn't encrypt your communications, well, you've probably already paid the price
What is it they say about honor among thieves? At least there is some poetic justice in having all the hackers get together and attack each other rather than trying to steal credit card numbers from ordinary citizens. Maybe now that they know what it feels like, we can all breathe a little easier.
Hopefully, there were some undercover FBI agents there, too, and we'll see some arrests made in the coming weeks.
RTFA!!!!
They are not trying to steal any kind of music they just want to listen to the music they already own which is Fair Use!
Do you work for the MPAA or something!
Please do not listen to this we have the right to tamper with any equipment in our possession even if we don't own it!
Our four fathers are spinning in they're grave!
This is what some of us have been saying for years.
The single biggest threat to the success of Linux is the Linux zealot who reads Slashdot, thinks UserFriendly is funny, talks about Monty Python incessently, and recompiles his kernel daily. Windows has its geeks, too, but it also has a ton of normal people who get some fresh air once in a while and enjoy the company of other humans.
Slashdot should be working to counteract this, not by trying to become still more geeky and elitist, but by trying to attract a more middle-of-the-road audience. How about a Sports section, or a columnist who deals with issues that everyone cares about, like taxes?
The solar-powered flashlight is finally a reality.
Stallman is not a "stakeholder." No one is going to break into his house and solder a DRM chip onto his motherboard. If he doesn't want computers with DRM, then no one's going to force him to buy any.
Maybe the Dell Dude is now persuasive enough that his powers of resistence no longer have any effect.
Seriously, if enough of America is really that concerned with being allowed to pirate software and steal music, then the market will stop DRM for us.
Okay, I am as psyched about new MP sketches as the next slashdroid, but please let's not go advertising it.
Geekdom in general, and Linuxism in particular, are widely derided by the general public for being obsessed with the [admittedly brilliant] Monty Python comedy group. The programming language "Python" makes us look ridiculous enough.
I pray to Linus that none of my friends or family sees the front page of Slashdot while this story is running. They know I read Slashdot and read Linux, but I assure them it's all technical, and not in the least geeky and antisocial. If they see this, I'm doomed.
Please, Slashdot editors, take the reputation of Linux into account before running articles like this.
Hey, this sounded pretty cool at first. I mean, the more languages the better, right? ;) Plus, I hate it when the Winblowz lusers get to play with pretty toys I can't get on my Linux boxen.
:(
But then I reconsidered. First, a little background. C# was, is, and always will be, a Micro$oft invention. Like it did with SMB and OLE, not to mention DirectX and ZIP, M$ will have no reservations about mucking with C# just to break Mono compatibility.
In the case of SMB, we live with this. SMB has become a de facto standard in the enterprise, so Samba is forced to follow M$'s lead and keep up. But no such market forces exist for C#. Right now, it's a minority player against giants like Java and C++.
By supporting C# through Mono, Linux only serves to make it more popular. In doing so, it makes M$ more powerful. The Mono project is about as counterproductive toward Linux advancement as a Free Software project can be.
Ransom Love, Robert Love...it's no wonder no one trusts these guys with their money. Dick Stallman and Ed Raymond sound like good, dependable names, so that's something. But Linus? Andrea? We need some manlier-sounding kernel hackers.