So? Many people use out-of-date software, you shouldn't force a person to upgrade when their current setup works well enough.
it doesn't work properly,
Only if you define "properly" so strictly that no other browser would work "properly" according to that definition. All browsers have significant rendering bugs. In the case of IE for Mac, the problem is just as likely to be that the site is not being compliant because IE for Mac is less lax in requiring standards compliance than many other browsers (again, I remind you that it's a completely separate program from IE for Windows).
it is slow,
True, but if that doesn't bother the user in question, who cares? The topic here was whether a poster's dad should continue using IE for Mac or not.
Is there an IE theme available for Mozilla or better yet Firefox? This would make it a lot easier for people like my grandmother who had to re-learn what all the buttons did when i sent her to Firefox.
I don't think those are available for recent versions, but you might want to try the K-Meleon browser, which uses the Mozilla rendering engine and puts a native Windows front-end on it that looks a lot like Explorer by default (but is themable).
Now, running IE on an OSX box is just stupid. It's old, out of date, doesn't work properly, is extremely slow, and isn't being supported. Your dad should be using Safari or Camino (which I'm sure you know). Just erase IE.
IMO, you're exaggerating. Don't forget that IE for Mac shared absolutely nothing in common with IE for Windows, it's a totally different beast (and no HacktiveX either in the 5.x versions). So in comparison with IE for Windows it is secure enough, and sites do in fact generally render properly in it. It's slow, but if that doesn't bother the dad in question, IMO the son should leave well enough alone, and be glad he is at least on a Mac.
So Saddam is against Islamist extremists, and we bomb him -- but we do business with Saudi Arabia, the country that is home to the wealthy funders of Islamic extremism, and home to all the Sept. 11 hijackers?
Whether or not a service is free is irrelevant. Yahoo/Hotmail etc aren't going to want to get a bad name for losing customers data even if you're not paying.
Every day I get dozens of delivery attempts at
an address I used to run a listserver on, which
has been invalid since 1998. No human has *ever*
been behind that address. The spambags do not
care about invalid addresses.
"We have also had a desire to present a consistent look and feel for our browser across the platforms that we support - including Windows, MacOS X and Linux. This allows us to create a stronger brand identity for ourselves."
"Brand identity", psah! I'm not familiar with the whole Mozilla/Firefox dev team but that alone there tells me there's something wrong with their attitude. How about creating a better experience for the user? That's better than any "brand identity!"
Cross-platform looks suck, I won't use any browser that makes my Mac looks like some second-rate Windows monstrosity. Thank goodness there's Camino...
if app needs to register itself as a handler for some mime type or for some protocol - it does it on launch, every time
What? I don't use OS X, but that sounds crazy. Assuming only your web browser is running, how does the system know which email app to run when you click on a mailto: link?
He's incorrect. Protocol handlers are registered using the application's signature (same thing as classic Mac OS's creator code), which is independent of the program's directory location. The system only needs to keep track of where the registered appliations are moved, which I imagine happens transparently in the background.
Other than core system configuration and core libraries the whole system uses, I ideally think *any app should be totally confined to one directory level. IMO this is one thing Windows does right.
Except that many applications install their own DLL cruft under C:\WINDOWS anyway (Microsoft itself being one of the worst offenders), and that the program stops working if you move the application dir around, thus eliminating completely the usefulness of this concept.
No, the OS that does this right is Mac OS X. Installing an app is as simple as copying the application package (basically just a directory), and you can put and move it anywhere.
Markov random text generator
on
Spam as Poetry
·
· Score: 1
Sounds like most or all of the lines in the "spoems" have been taken from the randomly generated gibberish spammers insert into their junk in order to get past the spam filters. But there are easier ways to do the same trick - no spam required, just some text.
Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD?
on
Stallman vs Ken Brown
·
· Score: 1
Oh, please. I was with you until I hit this libelous hyperbole. Given my earlier remark, I could just as easily call RMS an "ethics-less opportunist" who's latched onto Linux's growing popularity to push his agenda to a wider audience that otherwise would never have heard of GNU.
The "audience" still has never heard of GNU, they think Linux is the OS. That's kind of the whole point. Sheesh.
I'm not sure what the question was, but the answer is no.
Next!
Re:what MS funded "study" about Linux isn't FUD?
on
Stallman vs Ken Brown
·
· Score: 1, Troll
So why does he not call it "GNU/[KDE|GNOME]/[X]/Linux"?
Answer: because that would be obnoxious.
(1) GNOME is part of the GNU system (you know, GNU Network Object Model Environment.
(2) No, the answer is that the GNU system is what started it all, years before Linux was even an idea in Linus Torvald's head. The GNU system was in use on top of other kernels years before Linux. Everything from 'ls' to 'gcc' in your GNU/Linux system is GNU.
In other words, the fact is that the basis of the GNU/Linux system is GNU, not Linux -- as demonstrated by the fact that it's perfectly possible to run GNU on top of another kernel, and from an end user perspecetive you wouldn't know the difference.
By continuing to push the whole "GNU/Linux" crap, but ignoring other components of a usable system, he's demonstrating hypocrisy.
No, he's merely fighting against the falsification of history perpetrated by ethics-less opportunists such as Linus Torvalds and anti-RMS knee-jerkers such as a significant part of the Slashbot crowd.
The present article demonstrates exactly why this kind of accuracy is essential - not just to give the FSF its due credit but simply for the sake of avoiding confusion and fighting FUD.
Why do you not see it, when it's plain as day to the rest of us?
Of course, this would also be possible with just about any open source license (e.g., BSD), so it really has nothing to do with RMS and GPL.
Who's talking about the GPL? The BSD license is a Free Software license according to RMS's definition. Not all Free Software licenses are Copyleft licenses.
They showed that (for the tasks they studied, of course) in IIRC all casees, the GUI was faster, however the command line users thought they were faster. The explanation de jure was that because your mind is more involved in typing, it seems like less time even though it's more.
Since both mouse skills and typing skills vary widely between people, I don't see how it's possible to generalize on this issue at all. Obviously someone who can't type will be slow with CLI's, and someone without much mouse practice will be slow with GUI's.
Re:Did we really need a link to slashdot in the st
on
On Collaborative Weblogs
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I mean, seriously folks, that's just stupid.
Not to mention dangerous! Who knows what kind of freaky loops the recursive Slashdot effect can get us into... it may cause warps in the time/space curve, or something!
Linux IS a very difficult product to commoditize. Shall we install Debian, Suse, Redhat, Slackware, Gentoo, LFS or someother distro? What's the difference between the distros? How do I know I'm picking the right one? [...]
It's for this very reason that when I evangelize, I push FreeBSD.
Ah... so why not NetBSD or OpenBSD or BSDI? How do you know you're picking the right one?
Not to mention the industrial, chemical and biological pollution caused by spontaneous post-crash combustion of scores of these containers packaging freshly deceased would-be amateur pilots. I'm not sure the ecological effects of dumping and incinerating tons of such canned meat product are well known, especially if the meat is human and the dumping is done over inhabitated areas.
Slashdot Mirror
So? Many people use out-of-date software, you shouldn't force a person to upgrade when their current setup works well enough.
Only if you define "properly" so strictly that no other browser would work "properly" according to that definition. All browsers have significant rendering bugs. In the case of IE for Mac, the problem is just as likely to be that the site is not being compliant because IE for Mac is less lax in requiring standards compliance than many other browsers (again, I remind you that it's a completely separate program from IE for Windows).
True, but if that doesn't bother the user in question, who cares? The topic here was whether a poster's dad should continue using IE for Mac or not.
Actually, support won't be retired until 31 December 2005. But since Microsoft support is useless anyway, who cares?
The rest of your message was just off-topic so I'll let that be.
I don't think those are available for recent versions, but you might want to try the K-Meleon browser, which uses the Mozilla rendering engine and puts a native Windows front-end on it that looks a lot like Explorer by default (but is themable).
So in what other Western country is prison rape universally accepted as par for the course?
IMO, you're exaggerating. Don't forget that IE for Mac shared absolutely nothing in common with IE for Windows, it's a totally different beast (and no HacktiveX either in the 5.x versions). So in comparison with IE for Windows it is secure enough, and sites do in fact generally render properly in it. It's slow, but if that doesn't bother the dad in question, IMO the son should leave well enough alone, and be glad he is at least on a Mac.
I see the mods here can't tolerate political dissent either. Pathetic.
Oil explains it all.
Um, are you sure?
So much for the security through obscurity doesn't work mantra, then.
Every day I get dozens of delivery attempts at an address I used to run a listserver on, which has been invalid since 1998. No human has *ever* been behind that address. The spambags do not care about invalid addresses.
That isn't nationalism -- that is plain common sense.
Those aren't mutually exclusive. My guess is both.
One word: "patents". Nuff said.
"Brand identity", psah! I'm not familiar with the whole Mozilla/Firefox dev team but that alone there tells me there's something wrong with their attitude. How about creating a better experience for the user? That's better than any "brand identity!"
Cross-platform looks suck, I won't use any browser that makes my Mac looks like some second-rate Windows monstrosity. Thank goodness there's Camino...
He's incorrect. Protocol handlers are registered using the application's signature (same thing as classic Mac OS's creator code), which is independent of the program's directory location. The system only needs to keep track of where the registered appliations are moved, which I imagine happens transparently in the background.
Except that many applications install their own DLL cruft under C:\WINDOWS anyway (Microsoft itself being one of the worst offenders), and that the program stops working if you move the application dir around, thus eliminating completely the usefulness of this concept.
No, the OS that does this right is Mac OS X. Installing an app is as simple as copying the application package (basically just a directory), and you can put and move it anywhere.
It seems like the ROX and Zero Install folks had the same idea...
Sounds like most or all of the lines in the "spoems" have been taken from the randomly generated gibberish spammers insert into their junk in order to get past the spam filters. But there are easier ways to do the same trick - no spam required, just some text.
The "audience" still has never heard of GNU, they think Linux is the OS. That's kind of the whole point. Sheesh.
Rest of nonsense not dignified with a response.
I'm not sure what the question was, but the answer is no.
Next!
(1) GNOME is part of the GNU system (you know, GNU Network Object Model Environment.
(2) No, the answer is that the GNU system is what started it all, years before Linux was even an idea in Linus Torvald's head. The GNU system was in use on top of other kernels years before Linux. Everything from 'ls' to 'gcc' in your GNU/Linux system is GNU.
In other words, the fact is that the basis of the GNU/Linux system is GNU, not Linux -- as demonstrated by the fact that it's perfectly possible to run GNU on top of another kernel, and from an end user perspecetive you wouldn't know the difference.
No, he's merely fighting against the falsification of history perpetrated by ethics-less opportunists such as Linus Torvalds and anti-RMS knee-jerkers such as a significant part of the Slashbot crowd.
The present article demonstrates exactly why this kind of accuracy is essential - not just to give the FSF its due credit but simply for the sake of avoiding confusion and fighting FUD.
Mirror, mirror on the wall...
Who's talking about the GPL? The BSD license is a Free Software license according to RMS's definition. Not all Free Software licenses are Copyleft licenses.
Since both mouse skills and typing skills vary widely between people, I don't see how it's possible to generalize on this issue at all. Obviously someone who can't type will be slow with CLI's, and someone without much mouse practice will be slow with GUI's.
Not to mention dangerous! Who knows what kind of freaky loops the recursive Slashdot effect can get us into... it may cause warps in the time/space curve, or something!
Ah... so why not NetBSD or OpenBSD or BSDI? How do you know you're picking the right one?
Not to mention the industrial, chemical and biological pollution caused by spontaneous post-crash combustion of scores of these containers packaging freshly deceased would-be amateur pilots. I'm not sure the ecological effects of dumping and incinerating tons of such canned meat product are well known, especially if the meat is human and the dumping is done over inhabitated areas.