I don't use GNOME because I don't like the usability of GTK. An example: when I get a window with as only widget a text box, this box is not active
You can't have a window with only a text box widget. Why? Because the window is a widget. There's a container widget of some type there, and then inside of that, you'll have a text box. You'll probably have some buttons there, too. Remember that those are also widgets.
The problem you describe has nothing to do with the toolkit. It'd be difficult for the toolkit to go about making decisions about what should have focus, and being wrong about that could be dangerous. The programmer is responsible for deciding what widget has the default focus. Blame the author, not the toolkit : )
Another question: aren't the function names much too long? Why all those casts? Doesn't that come from the C choice. I'm not a grat programmer, but that scarces me. I'd prefer C++ for the UI
The function names are hardly longer than those in many other toolkits. It doesn't seem to bother those of us who use GTK+, anyway. I'd call it a non-issue. The casts help insure correctness. If you're making a mistake with your objects, you'll be informed by debugging messages. And as for C++... it's a great language, but it's a lot more difficult to link against other languages. Just look at the number of binding for GTK+ vs. QT. There's a lot of flexibility there. I'm sure if you look through the linux kernel archives, you'll see why C++ is discouraged in the kernel. The same reasons apply to a lot of low level libraries, like libc. I think using C for GTK+ was absolutely the way to go.
She's a college girl. She cooks for me (even though I'm a damn fine cook myself). She wants me to help here learn C++ and PERL. I don't spend much time on IRC, so she doesn't either. And, she listens to StaticX, Type O, Metallica,...
And she's a 5 foot one redhead. With no freckles. I don't like freckles:)
You haven't gotten around to using BO2K have you? Your description applies to the original BO, but not the new one. It's important to recognise that BO2K can't be installed without a user specified port and password, no less than 14 characters! (Like ByTemyS00percRank) We admins aren't going to see widespread distribution or network scans. It could still be used for attacks, but it's not really more of a problem than anything else.
If you want us to use something else, make something better.
I believe that there has ALWAYS been something better. The mac was better than win 3.1, people were just too cheap to pay the extra money for one. You get what you pay for.
1: It's just an administration tool. If this is just a tool why not create a shortcut on the desktop called 'Uninstall Back Orifice'?
Because if you are a network system admin, you don't really want people changing the software on their machines. Especially removing the program that you use to take care of said machines. To that end, if your client is scriptable, then you could run periodic, scheduled checks on all of your MS workstations to check for unwanted system changes. Thats a great and wonderfull thing.
2: It's MS' fault for having the security holes in the first place. There may be defects in the product, but that gives you no right to write a program whose primary purpose is to punish those who use it.
My responce: bull. If you want to give BO a purpose other than that stated, then it is perhaps a good argument for designing/using systems with security in mind. At least if you value your privacy and data. If BO didn't expose the basic flaws in such designs some other program would. It's only a matter of time. By releasing BO very publicly, both the users and the engineers of those systems get a good reason for using a better design. The idea is not to punish users, but to convince them that they need to demand better design from their vendors. Let me say that again: If such a program were not released publicly, then it would be released quietly. If it were done in that manner, then consumers would not worry about their systems, and continue to live in a deluded blissful belief that they were safe. The design would not improve.
3: MS wouldn't fix the holes if we didn't exploit them. Response: If you're so concerned about MS fixing their security holes, why not give them an advance copy of the software so they can attempt to fix them _before_ all the jackass kids exploit them?
First, when was the last time that MS fixed anything that wasn't demanded of them. If a problem exists, but isn't being exploited, they usually ignore it untill it is being exploited. Second, and most unfortunate is that these problems are inherent to the design of Windows. I don't think that MS could "fix" them if they wanted to. It would break too much existing software. BO is written with standard Win32 api calls. What's that? Yes, Microsoft DESIGNED WINDOWS TO ALLOW PROGRAMS TO DO THIS.
All they have done for the community is reinforce the atmosphere of distrust that pervades the internet today.
Who do you trust?
No, I'm not a member of cDc. I don't know if they want new members. I have, however, been very pleased with BO. I gained 100% access to my own place of business's network without any physical access. By doing so, I made the argument that security in the office was of prime importance. It held water, and we took some steps to make our Windows machines more secure. That's right, BO had exactly it's described effect. Is that so surprizing?
There are *nix based controls, actually. I authored "gspot" myself, from the original *nix sources. It was kinda fun, though I get less respect from some of my co-workers. There's at least one other graphical control for Linux, too.
I work in a computer repair shop, and I've got to say that Dell computers are bad for business. We almost never get those things in.:)
I really think that Dell computers are of much higher quality than most of their competitors. I'm glad to see that they will now ship with a higher quality OS installed. This is a boon to both Red Hat _and_ Dell.
I think that you are missing the point of OSS. We need users as much as programmers. If not for the users of the world, then WHO IS OSSS FOR? Why does Linus want to direct Linux as a desktop OS more than a high end UNIX server platform? It's because he (we) believe that OSS software isn't very useful if it's not usefull to everyone.
Katz is definitely one of us, and so are all of the AC posters, like it or not. We don't all have the same ideals and backgrounds, but we are all one. Who are you to question his contributions? Where are yours?
It seems like Katz gets a lot of resentment here, and Sengen too. Why is that? I think that these people are real. They express thoughts and opinions. They have real interests that extend outside of computers. I respect that.
Be more accepting of people, and you'll be accepted too.
Holy geez, that was funny the first time I saw it...and the second and the third..
My good friend Justin downloaded that at the computer shop where we worked. We must have watched it about five times after we closed. I almost pissed myself laughing that hard. I used to have it on my hard drive, but I can't find it now. I DO have the South Park pilot episode (both the released and the never-aired versions) on my computer. I can't begin to tell you how funny those are.
You don't HAVE to like the colors. Sign up as a member, and you can set your own! Personally, I think the new layout whoops ass, and the layout is the only thing you can't change yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't use GNOME because I don't like the usability of GTK. An example: when I get a window with as only widget a text box, this box is not active
You can't have a window with only a text box widget. Why? Because the window is a widget. There's a container widget of some type there, and then inside of that, you'll have a text box. You'll probably have some buttons there, too. Remember that those are also widgets.
The problem you describe has nothing to do with the toolkit. It'd be difficult for the toolkit to go about making decisions about what should have focus, and being wrong about that could be dangerous. The programmer is responsible for deciding what widget has the default focus. Blame the author, not the toolkit : )
Another question: aren't the function names much too long? Why all those casts? Doesn't that come from the C choice. I'm not a grat programmer, but that scarces me. I'd prefer C++ for the UI
The function names are hardly longer than those in many other toolkits. It doesn't seem to bother those of us who use GTK+, anyway. I'd call it a non-issue. The casts help insure correctness. If you're making a mistake with your objects, you'll be informed by debugging messages. And as for C++... it's a great language, but it's a lot more difficult to link against other languages. Just look at the number of binding for GTK+ vs. QT. There's a lot of flexibility there. I'm sure if you look through the linux kernel archives, you'll see why C++ is discouraged in the kernel. The same reasons apply to a lot of low level libraries, like libc. I think using C for GTK+ was absolutely the way to go.
Sorry dude, she was there, but I got her. :)
...
:)
She's a college girl. She cooks for me (even though I'm a damn fine cook myself). She wants me to help here learn C++ and PERL. I don't spend much time on IRC, so she doesn't either. And, she listens to StaticX, Type O, Metallica,
And she's a 5 foot one redhead. With no freckles. I don't like freckles
Look again, disk druid isn't a program itself, but part of the installer. It's code is in install.c and install2.c. It's on the CD.
You haven't gotten around to using BO2K have you? Your description applies to the original BO, but not the new one. It's important to recognise that BO2K can't be installed without a user specified port and password, no less than 14 characters! (Like ByTemyS00percRank) We admins aren't going to see widespread distribution or network scans. It could still be used for attacks, but it's not really more of a problem than anything else.
If you want us to use something else, make something better.
I believe that there has ALWAYS been something better. The mac was better than win 3.1, people were just too cheap to pay the extra money for one. You get what you pay for.
1: It's just an administration tool.
If this is just a tool why not create a shortcut on the desktop called 'Uninstall Back Orifice'?
Because if you are a network system admin, you don't really want people changing the software on their machines. Especially removing the program that you use to take care of said machines. To that end, if your client is scriptable, then you could run periodic, scheduled checks on all of your MS workstations to check for unwanted system changes. Thats a great and wonderfull thing.
2: It's MS' fault for having the security holes in the first place. There may be defects in the product, but that gives you no right to write a program whose primary purpose is to punish those who use it.
My responce: bull. If you want to give BO a purpose other than that stated, then it is perhaps a good argument for designing/using systems with security in mind. At least if you value your privacy and data. If BO didn't expose the basic flaws in such designs some other program would. It's only a matter of time. By releasing BO very publicly, both the users and the engineers of those systems get a good reason for using a better design. The idea is not to punish users, but to convince them that they need to demand better design from their vendors. Let me say that again: If such a program were not released publicly, then it would be released quietly. If it were done in that manner, then consumers would not worry about their systems, and continue to live in a deluded blissful belief that they were safe. The design would not improve.
3: MS wouldn't fix the holes if we didn't exploit them. Response: If you're so concerned about MS fixing their security holes, why not give them an advance copy of the software so they can attempt to fix them _before_ all the jackass kids exploit them?
First, when was the last time that MS fixed anything that wasn't demanded of them. If a problem exists, but isn't being exploited, they usually ignore it untill it is being exploited. Second, and most unfortunate is that these problems are inherent to the design of Windows. I don't think that MS could "fix" them if they wanted to. It would break too much existing software. BO is written with standard Win32 api calls. What's that? Yes, Microsoft DESIGNED WINDOWS TO ALLOW PROGRAMS TO DO THIS.
All they have done for the community is reinforce the atmosphere of distrust that pervades the internet today.
Who do you trust?
No, I'm not a member of cDc. I don't know if they want new members. I have, however, been very pleased with BO. I gained 100% access to my own place of business's network without any physical access. By doing so, I made the argument that security in the office was of prime importance. It held water, and we took some steps to make our Windows machines more secure. That's right, BO had exactly it's described effect. Is that so surprizing?
There are *nix based controls, actually. I authored "gspot" myself, from the original *nix sources. It was kinda fun, though I get less respect from some of my co-workers. There's at least one other graphical control for Linux, too.
If you want gspot, you can find it on freshmeat.
I work in a computer repair shop, and I've got to say that Dell computers are bad for business. We almost never get those things in. :)
I really think that Dell computers are of much higher quality than most of their competitors. I'm glad to see that they will now ship with a higher quality OS installed. This is a boon to both Red Hat _and_ Dell.
I think that you are missing the point of OSS. We need users as much as programmers. If not for the users of the world, then WHO IS OSSS FOR? Why does Linus want to direct Linux as a desktop OS more than a high end UNIX server platform? It's because he (we) believe that OSS software isn't very useful if it's not usefull to everyone.
Katz is definitely one of us, and so are all of the AC posters, like it or not. We don't all have the same ideals and backgrounds, but we are all one. Who are you to question his contributions? Where are yours?
It seems like Katz gets a lot of resentment here, and Sengen too. Why is that? I think that these people are real. They express thoughts and opinions. They have real interests that extend outside of computers. I respect that.
Be more accepting of people, and you'll be accepted too.
Holy geez, that was funny the first time I saw it...and the second and the third..
My good friend Justin downloaded that at the computer shop where we worked. We must have watched it about five times after we closed. I almost pissed myself laughing that hard. I used to have it on my hard drive, but I can't find it now. I DO have the South Park pilot episode (both the released and the never-aired versions) on my computer. I can't begin to tell you how funny those are.
All hail the highway department!
You don't HAVE to like the colors. Sign up as a member, and you can set your own! Personally, I think the new layout whoops ass, and the layout is the only thing you can't change yourself.