Firefox is not a good browser to use on Apple notebooks under MacOS, because it actively prevents the machine from going to sleep if you leave it idle.
I've been using FF very extensively on my own Apple notebooks from Powerbooks running 10.3 to Macbooks running 10.6, and also setup and administer these machines for others, and I have never seen what you are describing.
If 4.0 is going to cause further confusion by merging the address and search bars and removing security indicators, then forking may be the best tactic to help even typical users.
It may not be slow, but it is balky. X11 stuff does not stay properly configured over time and seems particularly vulnerable during OS updates. It doesn't have the architectural features that would simply keep the display running when minor difficulties are encountered.
X11 is also rubbish for remote access: having to be on the same LAN to get OK performance is not truly 'remote'. It also has no way to serve *multiples* of any window or desktop, which means that sharing windows with other people needs an old-fashioned, inefficient bitmap-tosser like VNC. And connecting to and using my existing (logged-in) desktop at home also requires slow VNC. The only possibility of sharing displays over the Internet the *right* way is to use NXserver, which is not free for any use and requires that anything like a normal SSH config goes out the window.
I think its a second-rate tactic to improve the user experience. Windows and (moreso) Ubuntu both had imperfect support of sleep and suspend modes, so they both focused on making the OS really fast booting.
OTOH a well-integrated device should sleep and wake seamlessly. Macs achieve this, as do most phones, PDAs and media players. But reading about this new direction for Ubuntu basically says to me: "We think sleep mode is too hard and want to rely on fast boot instead."
How much ya wanna bet that 2 years from now the instant booting feature will be another boondoggle, half-forgotten because the same lack of proper hardware support and integration that bedevils sleep mode for Linux distros also matters when it comes to transcending the normal boot process.
The proper approach for any computing platform would be to say "even though we have this great generally usable code, here is a list of specific computer models that we test on and expect Linux to work properly on". MS doesn't do this, leaving it to the hardware people to fill most of the gaps, which is why I see a lot MS techies pulling their hair out over things like Windows failing to return from sleep on 2-year old Intel and ASUS motherboards (and that doesn't even touch on the decrepitude found on Acer and similar PC brands). With Linux-based distros, its a bit worse because rarely does any system OEM target Linux through design to marketing phases. MS is too chickens--t to say "these models work best" and the Linux Foundation, Canonical and the rest are too lazy or disinterested in end-user issues to do the same.
The PC sold because of IBMs name. I was there and everybody thought IBM==computers.
I was there too and I would modulate the above statement to say: The Purchasing Dept. at mid-to-large sized corps thought IBM==computers; Many workers wanted Apples at first, but IBMs were the ones you could get past Purchasing without a ton of scrutiny or a rejection since the corps already had significant investment in IBM kit. Then in a few years it became "IBM and/or IBM compatibles" esp. when IBM PCs had somewhat populated the desktop and people were gaining experience with bargain machines (clones) in their homes.
So the early IBM PC explosion was predicated on the pretentious and vague assumption that the 5150 and successors somehow 'fit in' with IBM's mainframes. That, and the fact that your typical MIS dept. would take months or years to implement a basic new app or even a new schema within an existing app... oftentimes literally falling asleep at their desks for part of the day while your coworkers waited and waited.
The IBM PC was more expensive and the display & bus were crummy, but Purchasing would approve it... and then you could join up with other depts in their sneakernet end-run around the calcified MIS and their humongous mainframe terminals.
By the time Lotus 123 v2 came along, it was the established routine among professionals and the growing software base of the IBM PC/clones that mattered to other businesses that didn't have the IBM mainframe legacy.
VNC is slow. Having multiple VNC sessions in a broswer sounds like torture to me.
When is X11 going to get modern support for sharing displays over a network? Is anyone talking with Nomachine to work on a more integrated solution using NX technology?
Re:The lesser known Zen Coding koans
on
Zen Coding
·
· Score: 1
For years a person could choose to stay with a full-blown OS9 install on their new hardware. OS 10.0 - 10.2 were pretty much beta in the sense of getting the GUI to gell.
So what?
If you think 10.4 is lacking in usability, your head really is stuck on details of the past. I gave you Finder as an example of why OS X has different usability features that negate the need for the old ones.
OS X was a *new* OS with some similarity in the name. That's it. It wasn't a new version of the old thing.
Most of the things you think of as 'missing' are still functional but have been subsumed into different UI elements.
Two completely different window styles is *nothing* to people these days, who encounter all sorts of custom windows from 3rd parties, and many website layouts. They *should* be very different 1) for the sake of providing real alternatives to devs, and 2) so they are easily recognizable by users. I'd say Apple has done very well by adding only one window style.
All that usability research Apple 'pissed on' is *old* and the OS must make sense to a new generation of users.
As an old Amiga user, the line about Macs always being above the others is rank BS. After Jobs left Apple, he was quoted by BYTE magazine saying the *Amiga* was much of his inspiration for creating the NeXT. Virtually every Amiga system tool could function well as *either* shell-only or GUI using a standard method for implementing the two interfaces; most apps supported AREXX messages to an extent that was far beyond Hypercard and Applescript. Just like Windows machines, Macs were inferior personal computers for most of their pre-OS X lifespan!
So guess what?!! I'm sitting here using my Macbook, son-of-NeXT, inspired by my old love the Amiga!:p
That line about reformatting to upgrade is also BS. A person could go at least from 10.3 to 10.6 without reformatting the HD.
The old MacOS also had a sizable malware problem comparable with (though not as bad as) Windows.
"but when's the last time they took *any* sort of risk in their OS? " You just complained about things they recently added and then you say a thing like that.
Its clear you didn't approach the new Unix platform with an open mind, or maybe you switched too soon and each new upgrade wasn't amply appreciated because of your initial disappointment. I can understand that, and have gotten similarly over-frustrated with other platforms (like KDE on Linux) because of the development path.
FWIW, the Dock and Finder are very functional for me. The Dock accommodates spring folders, and the Finder has its 2-shelf system where I can easily add/remove app targets across the top, and folder targets along the side. Again, this is NeXT-like not Mac-like but I've seen the 3rd party file browsing apps that imitate OS9 Finder functions-- as someone new to both the built-in and 3rd party options, the latter seemed really stupid and old-fashioned.
And that's Stallman's problem. His ideal phone boots a GNU/HURD kernel and comes with nothing but a copy of emacs and the specifications of the hardware.
There has always been the actual freedom to breech copyright (though consequences may follow). But with ACTA even that freedom could disappear if law enforcement sees infringement as 'imminent'.
If you visit the i2p forums, they would explain to you that tor doesn't have the necessary design to handle anything bandwidth intensive (and the usage pattern of bt--tor is insecure). You need a different anonymizing network stack like i2p.
See my tagline about i2p, a low-latency onion type network made for anonymous general purpose use. It even has built-in bittorrent. It's been running for over 5 years now, and is reaching maturity (and success).
FWIW, most bittorrent access over tor is for tracker info only... not data transfer. Enabling the tor option in Vuze/Azeurus prefs will not unduly burden the tor network.
Thanks for the response. I think the Linux community plays some role in the success of MS patent slander: In particular I think the Linux Foundation have been somewhat chicken-hearted in not demanding to see the specifics of all Microsoft's patent claims on Linux.
That seems like an entirely subjective process to me. And it is unrealistic for the frequency with which people generate even formal communications today. Why not just provide web links when possible?
Really, there ought to be some sort of concrete guide that people can freely reference. I think ideally it would be written in the form and spirit of an RFC.
Why doesn't academia provide clearer guidance on where citations are appropriate, and particularly the situations where they're not needed? For instance, at what point can an established author drop the citations from their speech writing, blogging, etc. such that their own expression of ideas doesn't sound like collections of "X said XY and Y said Z"?
Just where and when are people expected to function as archaeologists of ideas, as opposed to just freely expressing themselves?
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox is not a good browser to use on Apple notebooks under MacOS, because it actively prevents the machine from going to sleep if you leave it idle.
I've been using FF very extensively on my own Apple notebooks from Powerbooks running 10.3 to Macbooks running 10.6, and also setup and administer these machines for others, and I have never seen what you are describing.
If 4.0 is going to cause further confusion by merging the address and search bars and removing security indicators, then forking may be the best tactic to help even typical users.
It may not be slow, but it is balky. X11 stuff does not stay properly configured over time and seems particularly vulnerable during OS updates. It doesn't have the architectural features that would simply keep the display running when minor difficulties are encountered.
X11 is also rubbish for remote access: having to be on the same LAN to get OK performance is not truly 'remote'. It also has no way to serve *multiples* of any window or desktop, which means that sharing windows with other people needs an old-fashioned, inefficient bitmap-tosser like VNC. And connecting to and using my existing (logged-in) desktop at home also requires slow VNC. The only possibility of sharing displays over the Internet the *right* way is to use NXserver, which is not free for any use and requires that anything like a normal SSH config goes out the window.
I think its a second-rate tactic to improve the user experience. Windows and (moreso) Ubuntu both had imperfect support of sleep and suspend modes, so they both focused on making the OS really fast booting.
OTOH a well-integrated device should sleep and wake seamlessly. Macs achieve this, as do most phones, PDAs and media players. But reading about this new direction for Ubuntu basically says to me: "We think sleep mode is too hard and want to rely on fast boot instead."
How much ya wanna bet that 2 years from now the instant booting feature will be another boondoggle, half-forgotten because the same lack of proper hardware support and integration that bedevils sleep mode for Linux distros also matters when it comes to transcending the normal boot process.
The proper approach for any computing platform would be to say "even though we have this great generally usable code, here is a list of specific computer models that we test on and expect Linux to work properly on". MS doesn't do this, leaving it to the hardware people to fill most of the gaps, which is why I see a lot MS techies pulling their hair out over things like Windows failing to return from sleep on 2-year old Intel and ASUS motherboards (and that doesn't even touch on the decrepitude found on Acer and similar PC brands). With Linux-based distros, its a bit worse because rarely does any system OEM target Linux through design to marketing phases. MS is too chickens--t to say "these models work best" and the Linux Foundation, Canonical and the rest are too lazy or disinterested in end-user issues to do the same.
The PC sold because of IBMs name. I was there and everybody thought IBM==computers.
I was there too and I would modulate the above statement to say: The Purchasing Dept. at mid-to-large sized corps thought IBM==computers; Many workers wanted Apples at first, but IBMs were the ones you could get past Purchasing without a ton of scrutiny or a rejection since the corps already had significant investment in IBM kit. Then in a few years it became "IBM and/or IBM compatibles" esp. when IBM PCs had somewhat populated the desktop and people were gaining experience with bargain machines (clones) in their homes.
So the early IBM PC explosion was predicated on the pretentious and vague assumption that the 5150 and successors somehow 'fit in' with IBM's mainframes. That, and the fact that your typical MIS dept. would take months or years to implement a basic new app or even a new schema within an existing app... oftentimes literally falling asleep at their desks for part of the day while your coworkers waited and waited.
The IBM PC was more expensive and the display & bus were crummy, but Purchasing would approve it... and then you could join up with other depts in their sneakernet end-run around the calcified MIS and their humongous mainframe terminals.
By the time Lotus 123 v2 came along, it was the established routine among professionals and the growing software base of the IBM PC/clones that mattered to other businesses that didn't have the IBM mainframe legacy.
I didn't say NX should be the default protocol.
But no, X11 is not the way it should be. It doesn't allow windows or desktops to be shared at the display protocol level.
VNC is slow. Having multiple VNC sessions in a broswer sounds like torture to me.
When is X11 going to get modern support for sharing displays over a network? Is anyone talking with Nomachine to work on a more integrated solution using NX technology?
"does it make a sound?"
Not on Linux.
For years a person could choose to stay with a full-blown OS9 install on their new hardware. OS 10.0 - 10.2 were pretty much beta in the sense of getting the GUI to gell.
So what?
If you think 10.4 is lacking in usability, your head really is stuck on details of the past. I gave you Finder as an example of why OS X has different usability features that negate the need for the old ones.
OS X was a *new* OS with some similarity in the name. That's it. It wasn't a new version of the old thing.
Did Mann have copyrights to the data, or was it collected from other sources only with permission for his research?
Just because a research project is gov't funded doesn't mean their data is in the public domain.
I agree with Gr8Apes.
Most of the things you think of as 'missing' are still functional but have been subsumed into different UI elements.
Two completely different window styles is *nothing* to people these days, who encounter all sorts of custom windows from 3rd parties, and many website layouts. They *should* be very different 1) for the sake of providing real alternatives to devs, and 2) so they are easily recognizable by users. I'd say Apple has done very well by adding only one window style.
All that usability research Apple 'pissed on' is *old* and the OS must make sense to a new generation of users.
As an old Amiga user, the line about Macs always being above the others is rank BS. After Jobs left Apple, he was quoted by BYTE magazine saying the *Amiga* was much of his inspiration for creating the NeXT. Virtually every Amiga system tool could function well as *either* shell-only or GUI using a standard method for implementing the two interfaces; most apps supported AREXX messages to an extent that was far beyond Hypercard and Applescript. Just like Windows machines, Macs were inferior personal computers for most of their pre-OS X lifespan!
So guess what?!! I'm sitting here using my Macbook, son-of-NeXT, inspired by my old love the Amiga! :p
That line about reformatting to upgrade is also BS. A person could go at least from 10.3 to 10.6 without reformatting the HD.
The old MacOS also had a sizable malware problem comparable with (though not as bad as) Windows.
"but when's the last time they took *any* sort of risk in their OS? "
You just complained about things they recently added and then you say a thing like that.
Its clear you didn't approach the new Unix platform with an open mind, or maybe you switched too soon and each new upgrade wasn't amply appreciated because of your initial disappointment. I can understand that, and have gotten similarly over-frustrated with other platforms (like KDE on Linux) because of the development path.
FWIW, the Dock and Finder are very functional for me. The Dock accommodates spring folders, and the Finder has its 2-shelf system where I can easily add/remove app targets across the top, and folder targets along the side. Again, this is NeXT-like not Mac-like but I've seen the 3rd party file browsing apps that imitate OS9 Finder functions-- as someone new to both the built-in and 3rd party options, the latter seemed really stupid and old-fashioned.
And that's Stallman's problem. His ideal phone boots a GNU/HURD kernel and comes with nothing but a copy of emacs and the specifications of the hardware.
No... it would come with printer drivers too.
About 98% of the people with pretty faces and talent (and all those who identify with them) will be against that movement. It would probably fail.
The better strategy may be to find ways to put online communications beyond surveillance. Then you robustly benefit all those freedoms you listed.
There has always been the actual freedom to breech copyright (though consequences may follow). But with ACTA even that freedom could disappear if law enforcement sees infringement as 'imminent'.
You can't use it for anything other than transferring files.
The way to hide it is to run a relay or exit node. FWIW, every node on i2p is a relay.
If you visit the i2p forums, they would explain to you that tor doesn't have the necessary design to handle anything bandwidth intensive (and the usage pattern of bt--tor is insecure). You need a different anonymizing network stack like i2p.
See my tagline about i2p, a low-latency onion type network made for anonymous general purpose use. It even has built-in bittorrent. It's been running for over 5 years now, and is reaching maturity (and success).
FWIW, most bittorrent access over tor is for tracker info only... not data transfer. Enabling the tor option in Vuze/Azeurus prefs will not unduly burden the tor network.
Thanks for the response. I think the Linux community plays some role in the success of MS patent slander: In particular I think the Linux Foundation have been somewhat chicken-hearted in not demanding to see the specifics of all Microsoft's patent claims on Linux.
Extremely well said!
That seems like an entirely subjective process to me. And it is unrealistic for the frequency with which people generate even formal communications today. Why not just provide web links when possible?
Really, there ought to be some sort of concrete guide that people can freely reference. I think ideally it would be written in the form and spirit of an RFC.
You misread my statement. I said "the legal... standing of the Linux community"
not "their legal... standing with the Linux community".
6 months after everyone else on Mac and Windows has.
They're hedging bets (or rather, buying "insurance" from MS) at the expense of the legal standing and reputation of the Linux community.
Why doesn't academia provide clearer guidance on where citations are appropriate, and particularly the situations where they're not needed? For instance, at what point can an established author drop the citations from their speech writing, blogging, etc. such that their own expression of ideas doesn't sound like collections of "X said XY and Y said Z"?
Just where and when are people expected to function as archaeologists of ideas, as opposed to just freely expressing themselves?