Then click on whichever toolbar ("control bar") you want to change, and change "Placement" to top/left/right/bottom/off. I have the tab bar at the top, then the address bar, and the status bar at the bottom. (No other toolbars visible. Since the address bar has forward/back/reload I don't like wasting screen real-estate with a "control bar".) Opera is probably the most configurable UI I've used--I guess you just have to know.
While I agree that open-sourcing Java won't be a magical solution that will somehow improve the codebase and allow people to run all sorts of languages to run on the JVM... there is in my opinion a good reason to get other languages to run on the JVM--to compete with.NET. Right now,.NET devotees don't have to use C# to get.NET code, they can use a scripting language instead. Having a scripting language (like PHP) that people can run on the same VM as Java would be a great boon to both people who use the scripting language as well as to Java's popularity in general.
Unfortunately it's buggy (i.e. will most likely hose your ext2 partition after a while), and doesn't work properly on Tiger, the current version of OS X ("Read only support (for now) and be prepared for kernel panics and/or system hangs").
Why can't Apple include ext2 support standard?! It boggles my mind. There doesn't exist, today, a Unixy filesystem that both OS X and Linux can read and write to reliably.
I can't speak for CompUSA (though it's unlikely) but Circuit City hasn't had comissioned employees since the first month of 2002, and Best Buy never has. There are minimum quotas everyone is expected to meet (otherwise, how can you tell if they're doing their job or not?) but you'll find that just about anywhere.
That's true; I spoke hastily. What I meant is that they're highly pressured to make sales and to add extras that the customer doesn't really need. A friend of mine worked at Best Buy (in the computer department) and told me plenty of stories about the atmosphere there--it's in some ways even worse than working on commission.
Regardless, my point stands--these companies don't encourage salespeople to sell you the system that is best for your needs, they encourage salespeople to sell you the most expensive system they think they can get you to buy.
Most retail sales people are simply not going to possess the necessary knowledge to correctly recommend or explain every nuance of a piece of hardware.
Not only that, but that's typically not their goal. They're typically on commission, so if grandma comes in looking for a computer, they're not going to try to find a computer to fit her modest needs--they're going to try and give her the biggest, most expensive computer with all the add-ons and extras they can manage. Buying a computer at one of these stores involves (a) knowing what you want, and (b) dodging the sales team's efforts to saddle you with extra stuff that you don't want.
Do you have hotkeys set up to move around workspaces? I have ctrl-alt-arrowkeys set to maneuver around my multiple desktops, making it pretty trivial to get wherever I need to be. Or are you more of a mouse-centric user? I think expose makes more sense for mouse-centric users. Although in Enlightenment (and in other window managers?) you can use the scroll wheel to change desktops too...
Yes, I agree that the suggestion to use gcj is retarded.
With regards to packaging Sun's JDK as an RPM (as opposed to using Sun's installer), the purpose for that isn't for if you just want to use Java as an internet plug-in, it's for if you want to download software packages via yum that depend on Java. For instance, let's say you want to install Azureus, which depends on Java. If you just do "yum install azureus", yum won't know that you've installed Java, so it won't want to install Azureus. But this is pretty much a moot point, since hardly anyone installs Java packages via a package manager like yum.
Rather than certificates and a central signing authority, I'd much rather do like ssh does--the first time you connect to any SSL site, it should give you the fingerprint of the site and ask if you want to trust this site for (a) this connection only or (b) all future connections. If you select (b), the browser should never ask you again about that particular SSL certificate. If the fingerprint changes, you should get a BIG warning that a man-in-the-middle attack is taking place.
This wouldn't do much to cover a lot of the main phishing tactics that take place today, but I think it would be a positive replacement for certificate authorities.
I agree with everything on that page, except for Java support. I develop Java and suggest that anybody who wants to develop serious Java applications use the official Java JDK from Sun.
Actually, their FAQ explains how to take the official Java JDK from Sun and package it as an RPM, so you get all the goodness of the official Sun JDK and if you want to install packages that depend on Java, they'll install properly resolving Sun's JDK as fulfilling their dependency.
The biggest reason I've found personally why people don't use postgres is because they've never heard of it. Everybody and their dog has heard of mysql, but I've never found somebody who knows about postgres who isn't actually using it. mysql, for whatever reason, just has better marketing.
Why that is I'm not entirely sure, since ever since I discovered postgres, mysql has been relegated to the role of "use-only-when-a-stupid-web-app-can't-use-anything -else". If I want a toy database, I'll use sqlite. If I want a real database, I'll use postgres. There really isn't much room in between the two.
The thing I hate about Client/SOA is that it's impossible to use typical browser navigation (forward/back buttons, bookmarks, mouse gesture navigation, etc.) with the Client/SOA method of doing things. Are there any current efforts to get rid of this problem?
So the answer to the submission is "Whatever is needed." Another pointless article.
You're all missing the point. The question isn't "Which Framework Should We Use?", the question is "How Do You Decide Which Framework to Use?"
The answer the first question is, quite obviously, "Whatever is needed." But the second question is asking, in essence, "What factors do you use in determining 'whatever is needed'?" That seems like an interesting question, and I'm surprised people don't seem interested in discussing it.
People can be bothered when they feel what they do makes a difference. For instance, more people signed up for the "Do Not Call" list than voted in the last presidential election.
Ask any Sunni or Shi'ite if they believe that [members of the opposite party] are "true Muslims". I haven't met a single person yet, even of the more fundamentalist variety, that would answer no.
The Sunni/Shi'ite line is handy for politicians to take advantage of and exploit, and there certainly is enough conflict over the difference, but both groups consider each other completely and totally Muslim. You will never hear about some (say) Shi'ite bombing, following which the Sunnis come out and say, "Oh, those weren't real Muslims, those were just Shi'ites."
Islam is considerably different from Christianity and most Western religions in that it is an inclusive, rather than exclusive religion. It's quite rare that a buddhist would say of another buddhist, "Oh, they're not a real buddhist," and likewise it's quite rare that a muslim would say of another muslim, "Oh, they're not a real muslim"--they tend to give those who claim membership in their faith the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.
This is in stark contrast with Christianity, where most Christians have no problems whatsoever telling other Christians that they're not real Christians, typically over some tiny theological detail.
It's, I think, mostly a difference in culture, but it is partially that the "peaceful Muslims" probably don't disagree with the extremists quite as much as we do. I would guess that most of them would say, "I see the point they're trying to make, even if I don't agree with the violence in their actions."
I think the author of the editorial makes a rather trivial point. (They could have made the point a lot stronger, pointing out that malware, spyware, adware, trojans, etc., are all able to be run from within unprivileged user-space.)
But why would a home user care about Unix-type security? I'll give you a few reasons of my own.
(a) Smaller target. Yes, that's right, I'm saying that the largest increase in security that home users get is because they're using something that 90% of the home user market isn't. This isn't a feature inherent to Unix, obviously--but I still think it's a reason to switch. "But if everyone switches, won't that get rid of the security increase?" Perhaps a little, but the only way it would completely vanish is if everyone switches to the same flavor of Unix. If we have a Unixy, more secure home computing environment, but slightly different flavors, then viruses and malware will have a more difficult time propagating in such a non-homogenous environment.
(b) Remote exploits. This, I think, is a lesser issue, but not a trivial one--there are a considerable number of remote exploits in Microsoft software, and there have been a non-trivial number of viruses and malware that spread through this vector. Unix-based systems are historically less vulnerable to such attacks, and often the remote processes that are vulnerable run under a different user than the desktop user anyway.
I love OS X. It's an awesome OS. But as another poster mentioned, the GUI is not built for power users--ask any fluxbox or evilWM user which GUI they'd prefer. I can configure my Linux desktop such that I rarely, if ever, have to touch the mouse. That's just not possible with OS X.
So for me, that ability to do most of what I need to get done with Linux, in my uber-customized window manager, with a beautiful and typically silent box sitting on my desk, plus the ability to dual boot (or preferably vmware- or even wine-style) to run Photoshop or Quark or video editing software (in other words, apps that don't exist on the Linux platform)... that, to me, is more than worth the Apple premium.
It's called the confirmation bias, and it happens to everyone. Even me.
Whenever you see information, your brain is hard-wired to interpret that information as best fits your current conclusions, and to forget or ignore parts of that information that don't fit as well.
Once you know the confirmation bias is there, however, you can more easily see yourself doing it, and perhaps mitigate the effects more easily. But it's still there!
BTW, "nice" and "mean" have exactly the definition that most people expect. You can also use slang/informal definitions that suit your purposes... but that is called sarcasm. "Nice" is a positive adjective, and "mean" is a negative one, with the only other adjective form being the mathematical one.
I think the OP meant that nice originally meant "silly" or "foolish", and that mean originally meant "common" or "universal".
I don't particularly agree with the OP nor his way of putting things, but language change does not make language "less useful". The modern definitions of "mean" and "nice" aren't any less useful than the definitions a thousand years ago. Language change is inevitable, but hardly ever in a "negative" direction.
Slashdot Mirror
View: Toolbars: Customize
Then click on whichever toolbar ("control bar") you want to change, and change "Placement" to top/left/right/bottom/off. I have the tab bar at the top, then the address bar, and the status bar at the bottom. (No other toolbars visible. Since the address bar has forward/back/reload I don't like wasting screen real-estate with a "control bar".) Opera is probably the most configurable UI I've used--I guess you just have to know.
While I agree that open-sourcing Java won't be a magical solution that will somehow improve the codebase and allow people to run all sorts of languages to run on the JVM ... there is in my opinion a good reason to get other languages to run on the JVM--to compete with .NET. Right now, .NET devotees don't have to use C# to get .NET code, they can use a scripting language instead. Having a scripting language (like PHP) that people can run on the same VM as Java would be a great boon to both people who use the scripting language as well as to Java's popularity in general.
Dlugar
Unfortunately it's buggy (i.e. will most likely hose your ext2 partition after a while), and doesn't work properly on Tiger, the current version of OS X ("Read only support (for now) and be prepared for kernel panics and/or system hangs").
Why can't Apple include ext2 support standard?! It boggles my mind. There doesn't exist, today, a Unixy filesystem that both OS X and Linux can read and write to reliably.
Dlugar
I do believe you mean Québécois. And you missed the bilingual pun.
HTH. HAND.
Dlugar
That's true; I spoke hastily. What I meant is that they're highly pressured to make sales and to add extras that the customer doesn't really need. A friend of mine worked at Best Buy (in the computer department) and told me plenty of stories about the atmosphere there--it's in some ways even worse than working on commission.
Regardless, my point stands--these companies don't encourage salespeople to sell you the system that is best for your needs, they encourage salespeople to sell you the most expensive system they think they can get you to buy.
Not only that, but that's typically not their goal. They're typically on commission, so if grandma comes in looking for a computer, they're not going to try to find a computer to fit her modest needs--they're going to try and give her the biggest, most expensive computer with all the add-ons and extras they can manage. Buying a computer at one of these stores involves (a) knowing what you want, and (b) dodging the sales team's efforts to saddle you with extra stuff that you don't want.
Dlugar
Do you have hotkeys set up to move around workspaces? I have ctrl-alt-arrowkeys set to maneuver around my multiple desktops, making it pretty trivial to get wherever I need to be. Or are you more of a mouse-centric user? I think expose makes more sense for mouse-centric users. Although in Enlightenment (and in other window managers?) you can use the scroll wheel to change desktops too...
Dlugar
Yes, I agree that the suggestion to use gcj is retarded.
With regards to packaging Sun's JDK as an RPM (as opposed to using Sun's installer), the purpose for that isn't for if you just want to use Java as an internet plug-in, it's for if you want to download software packages via yum that depend on Java. For instance, let's say you want to install Azureus, which depends on Java. If you just do "yum install azureus", yum won't know that you've installed Java, so it won't want to install Azureus. But this is pretty much a moot point, since hardly anyone installs Java packages via a package manager like yum.
Rather than certificates and a central signing authority, I'd much rather do like ssh does--the first time you connect to any SSL site, it should give you the fingerprint of the site and ask if you want to trust this site for (a) this connection only or (b) all future connections. If you select (b), the browser should never ask you again about that particular SSL certificate. If the fingerprint changes, you should get a BIG warning that a man-in-the-middle attack is taking place.
This wouldn't do much to cover a lot of the main phishing tactics that take place today, but I think it would be a positive replacement for certificate authorities.
Dlugar
Actually, their FAQ explains how to take the official Java JDK from Sun and package it as an RPM, so you get all the goodness of the official Sun JDK and if you want to install packages that depend on Java, they'll install properly resolving Sun's JDK as fulfilling their dependency.
Dlugar
KinderToday.com, News that Burps?!
(Serious. Check the parent URL.)
The biggest reason I've found personally why people don't use postgres is because they've never heard of it. Everybody and their dog has heard of mysql, but I've never found somebody who knows about postgres who isn't actually using it. mysql, for whatever reason, just has better marketing.
g -else". If I want a toy database, I'll use sqlite. If I want a real database, I'll use postgres. There really isn't much room in between the two.
Why that is I'm not entirely sure, since ever since I discovered postgres, mysql has been relegated to the role of "use-only-when-a-stupid-web-app-can't-use-anythin
Dlugar
The thing I hate about Client/SOA is that it's impossible to use typical browser navigation (forward/back buttons, bookmarks, mouse gesture navigation, etc.) with the Client/SOA method of doing things. Are there any current efforts to get rid of this problem?
You're all missing the point. The question isn't "Which Framework Should We Use?", the question is "How Do You Decide Which Framework to Use?"
The answer the first question is, quite obviously, "Whatever is needed." But the second question is asking, in essence, "What factors do you use in determining 'whatever is needed'?" That seems like an interesting question, and I'm surprised people don't seem interested in discussing it.
Dlugar
People can be bothered when they feel what they do makes a difference. For instance, more people signed up for the "Do Not Call" list than voted in the last presidential election.
I thought it was the best part of the film, actually. (And I'm a big DNA fan. Thought the rest of the movie basically sucked.)
(I didn't think it was funny, no, but I still thought it was the best part of the film.)
Dlugar
http://daveandvalerie.com/pictures/weddingcar/wedd ingcar-Pages/Image3.html
Yes, I'm quite serious.
Ask any Sunni or Shi'ite if they believe that [members of the opposite party] are "true Muslims". I haven't met a single person yet, even of the more fundamentalist variety, that would answer no.
The Sunni/Shi'ite line is handy for politicians to take advantage of and exploit, and there certainly is enough conflict over the difference, but both groups consider each other completely and totally Muslim. You will never hear about some (say) Shi'ite bombing, following which the Sunnis come out and say, "Oh, those weren't real Muslims, those were just Shi'ites."
Dlugar
Islam is considerably different from Christianity and most Western religions in that it is an inclusive, rather than exclusive religion. It's quite rare that a buddhist would say of another buddhist, "Oh, they're not a real buddhist," and likewise it's quite rare that a muslim would say of another muslim, "Oh, they're not a real muslim"--they tend to give those who claim membership in their faith the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.
This is in stark contrast with Christianity, where most Christians have no problems whatsoever telling other Christians that they're not real Christians, typically over some tiny theological detail.
It's, I think, mostly a difference in culture, but it is partially that the "peaceful Muslims" probably don't disagree with the extremists quite as much as we do. I would guess that most of them would say, "I see the point they're trying to make, even if I don't agree with the violence in their actions."
Dlugar
None, but John Titor has seen a few in his time.
I think the author of the editorial makes a rather trivial point. (They could have made the point a lot stronger, pointing out that malware, spyware, adware, trojans, etc., are all able to be run from within unprivileged user-space.)
But why would a home user care about Unix-type security? I'll give you a few reasons of my own.
(a) Smaller target. Yes, that's right, I'm saying that the largest increase in security that home users get is because they're using something that 90% of the home user market isn't. This isn't a feature inherent to Unix, obviously--but I still think it's a reason to switch. "But if everyone switches, won't that get rid of the security increase?" Perhaps a little, but the only way it would completely vanish is if everyone switches to the same flavor of Unix. If we have a Unixy, more secure home computing environment, but slightly different flavors, then viruses and malware will have a more difficult time propagating in such a non-homogenous environment.
(b) Remote exploits. This, I think, is a lesser issue, but not a trivial one--there are a considerable number of remote exploits in Microsoft software, and there have been a non-trivial number of viruses and malware that spread through this vector. Unix-based systems are historically less vulnerable to such attacks, and often the remote processes that are vulnerable run under a different user than the desktop user anyway.
Dlugar
Ever used OS X?
I love OS X. It's an awesome OS. But as another poster mentioned, the GUI is not built for power users--ask any fluxbox or evilWM user which GUI they'd prefer. I can configure my Linux desktop such that I rarely, if ever, have to touch the mouse. That's just not possible with OS X.
... that, to me, is more than worth the Apple premium.
So for me, that ability to do most of what I need to get done with Linux, in my uber-customized window manager, with a beautiful and typically silent box sitting on my desk, plus the ability to dual boot (or preferably vmware- or even wine-style) to run Photoshop or Quark or video editing software (in other words, apps that don't exist on the Linux platform)
Dlugar
It's called the confirmation bias, and it happens to everyone. Even me.
Whenever you see information, your brain is hard-wired to interpret that information as best fits your current conclusions, and to forget or ignore parts of that information that don't fit as well.
Once you know the confirmation bias is there, however, you can more easily see yourself doing it, and perhaps mitigate the effects more easily. But it's still there!
I think the OP meant that nice originally meant "silly" or "foolish", and that mean originally meant "common" or "universal".
I don't particularly agree with the OP nor his way of putting things, but language change does not make language "less useful". The modern definitions of "mean" and "nice" aren't any less useful than the definitions a thousand years ago. Language change is inevitable, but hardly ever in a "negative" direction.