I appreciate how thoroughly you've gone through all these points, and I agree with almost all of it. I certainly agree with anything and everything about the technical superiority of Firefox...
However, I don't think that those Javascript tests do anything other than to influence the geekier computer users. At the end of the day, any evidence that Chrome is faster than other browsers is enough. It's enough to put "Try Chrome! It's faster, easier and better!" (or whatever) on the Google homepage. The masses will just go with the trendy, easier option, not the most technically advanced one. It doesn't matter what people will prefer after trying every product.
For about 90% of any market, what matters is what they prefer after trying some of the things they were prompted/forced to use. My evidence for this is IE. There are many other examples in pretty much any market. Even go to your local shop: you can't honestly tell me that the best "fancy" chocolate box is also the most popular one. Popularity through familiarity: advertising and, well, popularity(!).
Going to a more computer-oriented example, I installed Ubuntu on my parents' computer, after XP was compromised for the umpteenth time. They prefer it to Windows (because it's "faster and doesn't break all the time"), but how many people have the privilege of a geek son to give them the choice. On the other side of this, there's a lot of decided inertia. One of my friends installed it, preferred it, but doesn't use it because "Windows is grand".
You're right. I didn't explain my main worry. There's a strong trend towards Chrome because of its simplicity, and I like Firefox because of its completeness. People who "give to shits about freetard politics" would use GNU Icecat. I don't. I just think that Firefox is the best.
I know that this doesn't really matter to Mozilla per se, but Firefox is coming under some tough times in the near future. I have to say, I do fear for the future of my favourite browser (my favourite by a mile, dispite its flaws).
They're soon losing the Google funding and support (probably). They seem to be not taking ANYONE's side on anything. H.264 Ubuntu, even, seem like they'll switch to a custom Chromium browser in the next couple of releases. They don't seem to be leading the market in features at all any more, and only seem to limply suggest that it's the best by focusing on security (note: I DO think it's the best, what I mean is the public image).
Do other Firefox fans feel that the market might deem it unnecessary or out of touch?
Second of all, the reason FOSS always seem to be behind Win/Mac is that when there is a FOSS project which is pioneering something, it is usually not advertised and ignored until one of these companies comes along and claims to have invented it. When MS/Apple pioneer something, they spend millions telling the world about it. It then becomes relevant to people that there is a FOSS version of this famous thing.
So, in summary: FOSS comes first -> not a big deal until the others do it. Proprietary comes first -> FOSS are lagging behind.
I don't do any development for old systems - I was just saying I can understand the appeal of it. I have actually gone skydiving...and paragliding...and bungee jumping (but I can't drive). And that's only in 20 years on the planet. That's fun for a change, but TBH, I prefer spending more time tinkering with machines and instruments. A general interest in the Universe is a wonderful thing to have.
And it gets you laid pretty often if you can also engage in conversation;-)
To be fair, open source is by no means a requirement for something to be story-worthy. It seems that most of the computer stories these days are about Apple products, which are rarely open source.
Also, the Linux/BSD release "stories" are usually far more enthusiastic (or advertising) than this, even if the company that releases it aims to make a profit. I say this as a Linux fanboy, by the way...
Open Office did not have the TOC, TOF, page numbering, section break, formatting options that worked well enough for those reports.
I have no idea what TOF is, but Open Office has perfectly good options for all of the other things. I refuse to believe that it wasn't up to scratch. Rather, I think that you have developed habits with MSO which you refuse to break or recognise.
I can understand how you'd have a problem with it, but there are several ways to get around it. If you're a windows user, though, you need to change some stuff for points 2 and 3 (I dunno about OS X):
1. Tab makes the tools appear/disappear. 2. Put the GIMP on its own workspace, so that nothing is getting in the way of it. Make/remember a shortcut for that workspace. 3. Use "always below other windows" for the image window (and press tab when you want it on top).
Hope this helps. Personally, I can't work effectively without "always on top/below" (or layers as in some WM's), workspaces and mouse-to-focus. This might be helpful. I've never tried any of this stuff: http://www.burningcutlery.com/derek/winsetup/#winmgr
What they should be doing is releasing it ONLY for Linux and OS X. That way, they could later mention what shitty games are available for those platforms. 3. Profit
What on Earth are you talking about? The article is about errors that are much smaller than 10e-6. So that certainly is the issue. It's not about usefulness, it's about delivering answers that are as accurate as they can be.
Irrational numbers are not such a problem as rational numbers which can't be represented in the base used.
Lets say our computer has 6-digit-decimal precision. If you add two irrational numbers, say pi and e, you'll get 5.85987. It's imprecise, but imprecision is necessary, since it can't be represented in any base.
But if you add 3/7 and 2/3 you get 1.90524 which is imprecise even though a precise answer does exist.
What's that supposed to mean? Apple's approach conflicts with the FSF's philosophy, so they're telling people why. Users are obviously still let decide; advising people one way or the other doesn't change that.
And it's not like the FSF is meddling in other people's business, because the question of what standards are commonly supported/used is relevant to everyone who wants to use a computer.
That was the first thing I thought. Is it possible that Americans don't know just how pitiful a publication this is?
For future reference,/., don't post anything from anyone whose logo is a red background with a white impact-style font over that. It's probably an English tabloid.
Cue people giving counter-examples... (Or "queue", as BitHive would say...)
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate how thoroughly you've gone through all these points, and I agree with almost all of it. I certainly agree with anything and everything about the technical superiority of Firefox...
However, I don't think that those Javascript tests do anything other than to influence the geekier computer users. At the end of the day, any evidence that Chrome is faster than other browsers is enough. It's enough to put "Try Chrome! It's faster, easier and better!" (or whatever) on the Google homepage. The masses will just go with the trendy, easier option, not the most technically advanced one. It doesn't matter what people will prefer after trying every product.
For about 90% of any market, what matters is what they prefer after trying some of the things they were prompted/forced to use. My evidence for this is IE. There are many other examples in pretty much any market. Even go to your local shop: you can't honestly tell me that the best "fancy" chocolate box is also the most popular one. Popularity through familiarity: advertising and, well, popularity(!).
Going to a more computer-oriented example, I installed Ubuntu on my parents' computer, after XP was compromised for the umpteenth time. They prefer it to Windows (because it's "faster and doesn't break all the time"), but how many people have the privilege of a geek son to give them the choice. On the other side of this, there's a lot of decided inertia. One of my friends installed it, preferred it, but doesn't use it because "Windows is grand".
You're right. I didn't explain my main worry. There's a strong trend towards Chrome because of its simplicity, and I like Firefox because of its completeness. People who "give to shits about freetard politics" would use GNU Icecat. I don't. I just think that Firefox is the best.
I know that this doesn't really matter to Mozilla per se, but Firefox is coming under some tough times in the near future. I have to say, I do fear for the future of my favourite browser (my favourite by a mile, dispite its flaws).
They're soon losing the Google funding and support (probably).
They seem to be not taking ANYONE's side on anything.
H.264
Ubuntu, even, seem like they'll switch to a custom Chromium browser in the next couple of releases.
They don't seem to be leading the market in features at all any more, and only seem to limply suggest that it's the best by focusing on security (note: I DO think it's the best, what I mean is the public image).
Do other Firefox fans feel that the market might deem it unnecessary or out of touch?
*sigh*
FIRST of all, tablet PC's are over 10 years old.
Second of all, the reason FOSS always seem to be behind Win/Mac is that when there is a FOSS project which is pioneering something, it is usually not advertised and ignored until one of these companies comes along and claims to have invented it. When MS/Apple pioneer something, they spend millions telling the world about it. It then becomes relevant to people that there is a FOSS version of this famous thing.
So, in summary:
FOSS comes first -> not a big deal until the others do it.
Proprietary comes first -> FOSS are lagging behind.
Mmmkay?
I don't do any development for old systems - I was just saying I can understand the appeal of it. I have actually gone skydiving...and paragliding...and bungee jumping (but I can't drive). And that's only in 20 years on the planet. That's fun for a change, but TBH, I prefer spending more time tinkering with machines and instruments. A general interest in the Universe is a wonderful thing to have.
And it gets you laid pretty often if you can also engage in conversation ;-)
...and Commodore64 application development continues unfalteringly.
I can understand it perfectly. It's the novelty, the nostalgia, and the challenge. If people think they'll enjoy the results, why not?
I haven't seen a floppy in almost 10 years.
I'm glad you got over your erectile dysfunction.
Okay, conspiracy theorists. If we are in the "Brave New World", where the fuck is my free drugs and obligatory orgies?
I wish there was a mod option for "poorly formed sig".
Why pay for this OS which is likely worth more than the Mac it is running on
It's worth more? Why, that's a great reason to use it!
To be fair, open source is by no means a requirement for something to be story-worthy. It seems that most of the computer stories these days are about Apple products, which are rarely open source.
Also, the Linux/BSD release "stories" are usually far more enthusiastic (or advertising) than this, even if the company that releases it aims to make a profit. I say this as a Linux fanboy, by the way...
I'm not going to argue over which is more secure, because, unlike everyone else here, I don't claim to know.
I just know when someone is making absolutely no sense.
They've been using Linux for years.
Macs are IMO a WORSE security risk than Windows when dealing with spearphishing and other forms of targeted attacks.
How could this be true? If the system is more secure, and the user is a constant, then it's no worse "when dealing with [...] targeted attacks".
Security updates are rare.
That's not an argument by itself. When's the last time you updated the walls of your house? If it ain't insecure, don't update it.
By the way, I'm no Apple fan. I just think your arguments are ridiculous.
Open Office did not have the TOC, TOF, page numbering, section break, formatting options that worked well enough for those reports.
I have no idea what TOF is, but Open Office has perfectly good options for all of the other things. I refuse to believe that it wasn't up to scratch. Rather, I think that you have developed habits with MSO which you refuse to break or recognise.
I think that's you. It's slightly bigger than usual for me...
Re: window management
I can understand how you'd have a problem with it, but there are several ways to get around it. If you're a windows user, though, you need to change some stuff for points 2 and 3 (I dunno about OS X):
1. Tab makes the tools appear/disappear.
2. Put the GIMP on its own workspace, so that nothing is getting in the way of it. Make/remember a shortcut for that workspace.
3. Use "always below other windows" for the image window (and press tab when you want it on top).
Hope this helps. Personally, I can't work effectively without "always on top/below" (or layers as in some WM's), workspaces and mouse-to-focus. This might be helpful. I've never tried any of this stuff: http://www.burningcutlery.com/derek/winsetup/#winmgr
What they should be doing is releasing it ONLY for Linux and OS X. That way, they could later mention what shitty games are available for those platforms.
3. Profit
Don't tell me what I'm implying when you clearly can't do basic reading comprehension. I just hope English isn't your first language.
What on Earth are you talking about? The article is about errors that are much smaller than 10e-6. So that certainly is the issue. It's not about usefulness, it's about delivering answers that are as accurate as they can be.
I'm saying the answer isn't precise.
Irrational numbers are not such a problem as rational numbers which can't be represented in the base used.
Lets say our computer has 6-digit-decimal precision. If you add two irrational numbers, say pi and e, you'll get 5.85987. It's imprecise, but imprecision is necessary, since it can't be represented in any base.
But if you add 3/7 and 2/3 you get 1.90524 which is imprecise even though a precise answer does exist.
What's that supposed to mean? Apple's approach conflicts with the FSF's philosophy, so they're telling people why. Users are obviously still let decide; advising people one way or the other doesn't change that.
And it's not like the FSF is meddling in other people's business, because the question of what standards are commonly supported/used is relevant to everyone who wants to use a computer.
That was the first thing I thought. Is it possible that Americans don't know just how pitiful a publication this is?
For future reference, /., don't post anything from anyone whose logo is a red background with a white impact-style font over that. It's probably an English tabloid.
Cue people giving counter-examples...
(Or "queue", as BitHive would say...)
This was meant to be a joke. I don't blame any of the people who are getting pissed off at this being "insightful"!
Thanks. Martha reads out stories and comments. Then I dictate replies of my own.
[Please help me. He has me locked in his basement and the smell is horrific!
- Martha.]