Video files aren't interactive and take up much more space than an SWF animation while being lower-quality due to compression and not being vector-based like Flash. Like on Homestar Runner, you can click things in the cartoons to have easter eggs pop up.
HTML5 and Flash have their ups and downs, but just because they can do similar things doesn't mean that Flash should be eliminated completely.
Re:pissing contests
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Somebody forgot about Flash games and animations (like Homestar Runner), quite possibly the most legitimate uses for Flash in existence that HTML5 couldn't replicate nearly as well, what with varying implementations and a constantly changing standard.
Well they sure align with my ideas of usability, hence the relativity of usability. GNOME 3 isn't perfect but I find it to be much more usable than GNOME 2 in several (though not all) areas. Give it some time; GNOME 2 had years and years to mature, while GNOME 3 is relatively fresh. By the time GNOME 4 comes around everybody is going to be bitching about how it's not exactly like GNOME 3, just like with every eventual desktop OS upgrade.
Usability is relative. GNOME is very usable to me, even if it doesn't seem usable to you. Many GNOME developers like the new interface, too, from what I've read.
Hopefully the devs working on Unity and Gnome realize that end users just want customization.
Then why is iOS so popular? It's certainly not because users can configure every little detail. It's because the interface is pleasing to use and doesn't require a lot of customization.
While GNOME's audience right now might be configuration-obsessed Linux users, they're trying to branch out into the audience that includes grandmas and teenagers with this new interface by making it simpler (in the long run, I mean, when people get used to it). I think that's as good of a goal as any, and it's only going to make GNOME more popular in the long run.
We do not believe that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, nor was it designed to be. We follow a combination of scriptural teachings as well as our traditions which span back to the very beginnings of Christianity (all of the famous Church Fathers, for example, were Catholic in name and beliefs). We believe that the different books of the Bible were written for different reasons (which is pretty obvious when you consider that they have different authors and dates attributed to them) and you cannot interpret the entire thing as literal or allegorical. The Catholic interpretation of scripture was passed on from the Apostles themselves and the Church Fathers; if you read their writings, you'll find their interpretations to be extremely close to the Catholicism we have today.
We weren't given a book and told to figure out what it means; we always knew what it meant. The problem is people who try to think it means something completely different than what we have historically believed (see literal, young-Earth Creationism and Protestantism). We're even friendly to Evolution so long as you believe that God initiated it (which isn't hard considering there's no concrete, scientific evidence either way saying there was or wasn't a God that started it).
Also, scripture says absolutely nothing about the Bible being 6000 years old. That's just one of many unofficial interpretations of it with little historical/scientific basis, if any.
The reason many Slashdot-readers might dislike Firefox usually has absolutely nothing to do with why normal people switch. Do you honestly think that memory leaks would make the average Joe switch to something else? No, it's because:
1) Chrome gets a LOT of advertising. It's on Google's front page, ads on web pages, included as "bonuses" for some software installs (like those pointless toolbars), etc.
2) Chrome has a simpler UI than Firefox somewhat. It's not "Traditional", but what do most people who are willing to try it out in the first place care?
3) It's "faster". Whether or not it actually is (I've heard conflicting reports), placebo effects like expecting it to be faster because all of your friends told you it's faster will only make you think it's better.
4) It's "hip", "cool", whatever. People are using it for the same reason iPods are still the most popular portable music player even when there are much better devices on the market (Sansa Clip+, anyone? I absolutely love it).
I like both browsers, but I just use Firefox for the desktop integration (I use GNOME 3) and because it's much more configurable than Chrome right now. Besides, Firefox is improving at a very rapid rate as of late and I'm really liking some of these improvements being brought to the table.
It was always a tech demo. They never "dropped it" because it never was a project to begin with. When new consoles are being released, companies demo updated versions of already existing games to show off the hardware, like how the N64 got a tech demo of Final Fantasy 6 in 3D and how the PS2 got a tech demo of the ballroom scene from Final Fantasy 8 rendered in real-time.
That said, it would still sell like hotcakes. I hope it's made for the 3DS, honestly, because I can see it performing well there. *Maybe* the Vita, though, but that would take more resources to develop.
Err, what I meant to say was that he was sarcastic. He wasn't implying that he didn't know of his dark side. Just to make that clear to anybody that didn't understand my comment.
Ah crap, I messed up again. What I MEANT to say was that he was talking about someone else entirely. Geez, what is wrong with my sentence-writing skills today...
Err, what I meant to say was that he was sarcastic. He wasn't implying that he didn't know of his dark side. Just to make that clear to anybody that didn't understand my comment.
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or just don't know Mr Job's dark side.
That's exactly what he implied. Read the comment he was replying to:
I want a Dennis Ritchie day!
The person you replied to, who replied to the person I just quoted, was talking about how Steve was a much "worse" person than Dennis Ritchie, and therefore deserved higher praise apparently because the world, to him, is totally twisted. He made a few logical fallacies, though, so I don't agree with him. The fact that people never mention the bad things Steve did are proof enough that we don't praise him for that; we praise him for his contribution to society by making consumer electronics a much more competitive industry, resulting in more innovation. Of course he threw the obligatory "capitalism is evil" bit at the end of his comment which I don't even need to respond to because it's so generalized and stereotypical of a notion that nothing I say can change that.
It lets you pin applications to the dash (favorites list) and search for them using the overview search box and Alt+F2 (use the tab key for auto-complete).
There isn't a taskbar simply because it's unnecessary and wastes space. Using the overview and Alt+Tab, with practice, can be just as fast (if not faster) than a traditional taskbar. You can always use an extension to switch windows using some form of task bar or dock if you don't like those methods.
The top bar (and title bar) being uncluttered is nice for people who get easily confused at seemingly-complex interfaces and it makes it easier to find the information you're looking for (I'm talking about non-power-users here).
Also, if things seem to take longer than they should in GNOME 3, it could possibly be because of your graphics drivers. Depending on the drivers you use, the effects can be smoother, faster, and less jarring. I switched over to Nouveau recently and it performs quite a bit better than the default Nvidia binary driver. It could also be because you aren't used to the new ways for switching windows, which does take a bit of time getting used to but it's well worth it.
Just go with Gnome 3 and shell and forget about Unity.
Except Gnome 3 sucks at least as bad as Unity because they're fundamentally both crappy touchscreen interfaces pushed onto desktop users.
I'm really sorry for enjoying the GNOME 3 interface, then. That's a very insightful and logical argument you have there...
How something like that could be modded up is beyond my understanding. It gives no logical reason why it's bad and apparently its been said enough by people who are resistant to change that it's considered an infallible truth. Simply because it has some similarities to touchscreen interfaces and is influenced by them it doesn't mean that it's inherently harder to use. I happen to enjoy GNOME 3 very much and I like a lot of the innovations it has like grouped Alt+Tab window switching, a less cluttered top-bar, much better chat integration, very simple and easy to use search for files and applications (just open the overview and type), etc. It's not a traditional interface and it requires some re-thinking of how you use the desktop, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I can't.
Besides, you realize that GNOME 3 is extensible, right? If there's anything you don't like about it, simply make or install an extension that changes it to be how you like. In 3.4 they'll have much better extension support by having one-click web installation of the extensions you want. You should try it when it's released in 2012!:)
Slashdot Mirror
i alwys thot tht tech had a negggative impakt on engrish... silly mee :) lolzorz
With this ;)
Video files aren't interactive and take up much more space than an SWF animation while being lower-quality due to compression and not being vector-based like Flash. Like on Homestar Runner, you can click things in the cartoons to have easter eggs pop up.
HTML5 and Flash have their ups and downs, but just because they can do similar things doesn't mean that Flash should be eliminated completely.
Somebody forgot about Flash games and animations (like Homestar Runner), quite possibly the most legitimate uses for Flash in existence that HTML5 couldn't replicate nearly as well, what with varying implementations and a constantly changing standard.
Even better: Cave Story!
Much better (and semi-joking): NetHack ;)
Can we just agree that Angry Birds is the new "Snake" and move on?
Clearly, the ui designers simply reject the KISS principle of engineering
I thought that was the entire point of simplifying UIs...?
Vocal people tend to be more negative than positive. News at 11.
Well they sure align with my ideas of usability, hence the relativity of usability. GNOME 3 isn't perfect but I find it to be much more usable than GNOME 2 in several (though not all) areas. Give it some time; GNOME 2 had years and years to mature, while GNOME 3 is relatively fresh. By the time GNOME 4 comes around everybody is going to be bitching about how it's not exactly like GNOME 3, just like with every eventual desktop OS upgrade.
Usability is relative. GNOME is very usable to me, even if it doesn't seem usable to you. Many GNOME developers like the new interface, too, from what I've read.
Hopefully the devs working on Unity and Gnome realize that end users just want customization.
Then why is iOS so popular? It's certainly not because users can configure every little detail. It's because the interface is pleasing to use and doesn't require a lot of customization.
While GNOME's audience right now might be configuration-obsessed Linux users, they're trying to branch out into the audience that includes grandmas and teenagers with this new interface by making it simpler (in the long run, I mean, when people get used to it). I think that's as good of a goal as any, and it's only going to make GNOME more popular in the long run.
This is why we have Catholicism.
We do not believe that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, nor was it designed to be. We follow a combination of scriptural teachings as well as our traditions which span back to the very beginnings of Christianity (all of the famous Church Fathers, for example, were Catholic in name and beliefs). We believe that the different books of the Bible were written for different reasons (which is pretty obvious when you consider that they have different authors and dates attributed to them) and you cannot interpret the entire thing as literal or allegorical. The Catholic interpretation of scripture was passed on from the Apostles themselves and the Church Fathers; if you read their writings, you'll find their interpretations to be extremely close to the Catholicism we have today.
We weren't given a book and told to figure out what it means; we always knew what it meant. The problem is people who try to think it means something completely different than what we have historically believed (see literal, young-Earth Creationism and Protestantism). We're even friendly to Evolution so long as you believe that God initiated it (which isn't hard considering there's no concrete, scientific evidence either way saying there was or wasn't a God that started it).
Also, scripture says absolutely nothing about the Bible being 6000 years old. That's just one of many unofficial interpretations of it with little historical/scientific basis, if any.
The reason many Slashdot-readers might dislike Firefox usually has absolutely nothing to do with why normal people switch. Do you honestly think that memory leaks would make the average Joe switch to something else? No, it's because:
1) Chrome gets a LOT of advertising. It's on Google's front page, ads on web pages, included as "bonuses" for some software installs (like those pointless toolbars), etc.
2) Chrome has a simpler UI than Firefox somewhat. It's not "Traditional", but what do most people who are willing to try it out in the first place care?
3) It's "faster". Whether or not it actually is (I've heard conflicting reports), placebo effects like expecting it to be faster because all of your friends told you it's faster will only make you think it's better.
4) It's "hip", "cool", whatever. People are using it for the same reason iPods are still the most popular portable music player even when there are much better devices on the market (Sansa Clip+, anyone? I absolutely love it).
I like both browsers, but I just use Firefox for the desktop integration (I use GNOME 3) and because it's much more configurable than Chrome right now. Besides, Firefox is improving at a very rapid rate as of late and I'm really liking some of these improvements being brought to the table.
If this will be released in the middle of the generation than so was the 360 for last generation.
The 360 was in the lead for a long time (in the U.S. at least)
You mean excluding the Wii?
It was always a tech demo. They never "dropped it" because it never was a project to begin with. When new consoles are being released, companies demo updated versions of already existing games to show off the hardware, like how the N64 got a tech demo of Final Fantasy 6 in 3D and how the PS2 got a tech demo of the ballroom scene from Final Fantasy 8 rendered in real-time.
That said, it would still sell like hotcakes. I hope it's made for the 3DS, honestly, because I can see it performing well there. *Maybe* the Vita, though, but that would take more resources to develop.
That's exactly what he implied.
Err, what I meant to say was that he was sarcastic. He wasn't implying that he didn't know of his dark side. Just to make that clear to anybody that didn't understand my comment.
Ah crap, I messed up again. What I MEANT to say was that he was talking about someone else entirely. Geez, what is wrong with my sentence-writing skills today...
That's exactly what he implied.
Err, what I meant to say was that he was sarcastic. He wasn't implying that he didn't know of his dark side. Just to make that clear to anybody that didn't understand my comment.
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or just don't know Mr Job's dark side.
That's exactly what he implied. Read the comment he was replying to:
I want a Dennis Ritchie day!
The person you replied to, who replied to the person I just quoted, was talking about how Steve was a much "worse" person than Dennis Ritchie, and therefore deserved higher praise apparently because the world, to him, is totally twisted. He made a few logical fallacies, though, so I don't agree with him. The fact that people never mention the bad things Steve did are proof enough that we don't praise him for that; we praise him for his contribution to society by making consumer electronics a much more competitive industry, resulting in more innovation. Of course he threw the obligatory "capitalism is evil" bit at the end of his comment which I don't even need to respond to because it's so generalized and stereotypical of a notion that nothing I say can change that.
Anyway... I hope I cleared that up for you.
It lets you pin applications to the dash (favorites list) and search for them using the overview search box and Alt+F2 (use the tab key for auto-complete).
There isn't a taskbar simply because it's unnecessary and wastes space. Using the overview and Alt+Tab, with practice, can be just as fast (if not faster) than a traditional taskbar. You can always use an extension to switch windows using some form of task bar or dock if you don't like those methods.
The top bar (and title bar) being uncluttered is nice for people who get easily confused at seemingly-complex interfaces and it makes it easier to find the information you're looking for (I'm talking about non-power-users here).
Also, if things seem to take longer than they should in GNOME 3, it could possibly be because of your graphics drivers. Depending on the drivers you use, the effects can be smoother, faster, and less jarring. I switched over to Nouveau recently and it performs quite a bit better than the default Nvidia binary driver. It could also be because you aren't used to the new ways for switching windows, which does take a bit of time getting used to but it's well worth it.
Just go with Gnome 3 and shell and forget about Unity.
Except Gnome 3 sucks at least as bad as Unity because they're fundamentally both crappy touchscreen interfaces pushed onto desktop users.
I'm really sorry for enjoying the GNOME 3 interface, then. That's a very insightful and logical argument you have there...
How something like that could be modded up is beyond my understanding. It gives no logical reason why it's bad and apparently its been said enough by people who are resistant to change that it's considered an infallible truth. Simply because it has some similarities to touchscreen interfaces and is influenced by them it doesn't mean that it's inherently harder to use. I happen to enjoy GNOME 3 very much and I like a lot of the innovations it has like grouped Alt+Tab window switching, a less cluttered top-bar, much better chat integration, very simple and easy to use search for files and applications (just open the overview and type), etc. It's not a traditional interface and it requires some re-thinking of how you use the desktop, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I can't.
Besides, you realize that GNOME 3 is extensible, right? If there's anything you don't like about it, simply make or install an extension that changes it to be how you like. In 3.4 they'll have much better extension support by having one-click web installation of the extensions you want. You should try it when it's released in 2012! :)
That was Qwik!
Thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
FTFY ;)
...Coming to a theater near you! Rated NC-17 for violence and disturbing sexual imagery.
When did this happen? I didn't hear about it until now. Link please, if any?
I'm sure that you think that video game consoles that use analog sticks, rumble and touch technology are ripping off the competition, too...
If Chrome has a feature that puts it at an advantage, why shouldn't Firefox have a similar feature?