Ah, but as bad as sofware like CyberPatrol undoubtably is, bringing in laws banning sites that the "moral majority" don't like would be worse. Not just because of free speech issues, or the impossibility of censoring the entire net (unless America were to cut itself off from the rest of it), but because it sets a dangerous precedent.
Okay, so this year, it's porn sites that are evil and must be destroyed. What will it be next year? Sites "promoting" homosexuality? Some other lifestyle that the "moral" majority doesn't like? Open Source software? ("Look at it! It undermines our entire Capitalist way of life! They're just giving it away!! Think of the poor software corporations!!")
Yeah, I know I'm paranoid, but it's better to be paranoid and wrong, than complacent and wrong...
True, mid-air nuclear blasts are more destructive (I guess it gives a pressure wave enough space to form), but I was thinking more along the lines of "conventional" weapons, rather than nukes.
With a non-nuclear missile, you really do need to be pretty accurate if you want to be sure of destroying the target, unless you throw lots of explosives at it, and I was kind of assuming that it was this type of missile that the GPS offset was designed to hinder. After all, with the exception of hardened targets, detonating a nuke 200 feet or 500 feet above the target isn't going to make a great deal of difference; either way, there isn't going to be much of it left:-)
Cheers,
Tim
Re:WinDSL Lower end machines?
on
WinDSL Coming?
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but lower-end machines are targeted at people with less money to spend on them, and who therefore will be more receptive to the idea of saving a few 10s of bucks at the expense of a "little" available CPU power. (Assuming, of course, that it occurs to them that that'll be the net result).
Remember, low end machines must be (relatively) cheap; if you're already paying 2000USD for your PC, and want a DSL router with it, you're not going to worry too much about whether it adds 150USD or 200USD to the price. If you're paying 1000USD for the PC, that extra 50USD is more of a concern.
Of course, that doesn't mean that it makes sense to put that much extra load on the sort of CPU that comes in a low-end machine, but hey!:-)
Cheers,
Tim
Re:Yeah, that whole 5-15% OOOOHHHHH!!!!
on
WinDSL Coming?
·
· Score: 1
True, except that, for now at least, I'd guess that most people with broadband access at home are geeks. Pretty much all the geeks I know use an OS other than Windows at least some of the time, and some have their own mini-LANs (and, in the case of one sysadmin, not-so-mini LAN:-) ), with at least a router-type machine running "not Windows".
Also, while I agree that it's rare to see a modem in an office, it's going to get more common to see offices with DSL connections...
Hey, maybe I'm being too optimistic, but it'd be nbice to think that, as alternatives to Windows grow in popularity, companies are going to start considering supporting them to be a financially viable option.
Cheers,
Tim
Re:Yeah, that whole 5-15% OOOOHHHHH!!!!
on
WinDSL Coming?
·
· Score: 1
You know, even 5-15% translates to a hell of a lot of money when you consider how large the computer market is...
(Note for those browsing at +1: I'm replying to an AC's reply to dcrowleyts, not his/her post)
Well, you certainly have the right idea, although I think that you could possibly have worded it a little better:-)
However, it is something of a thorny issue. Speaking as a parent myself (I have a 5 month old daughter), I agree that the government (in my case, that of the UK) has no place telling me how to raise my child. I intend to be a responsible parent, as does my partner (no, we're not married), and so I do not require laws like this to protect my daughter.
Unfortunately, the sad fact is that, as dcrowleyts pointed out, some parents seem to have largely abdicated responsibility for their offspring. As it is impractical to identify and point out to these parents the error of their ways (and do we even have the right to?), something does need to be done to protect their children from unscrupulous marketeers (and worse...).
I am not against the aims of this law, but I am saddened that America has so little faith in its parents that it feels it necessary to legislate to protect its children when the parents themselves should be doing it.
Don't blame the marketeers entirely. If parents exercised some responsibility in this area the justification for targeting penniless waifs would dry up and blow away.
I don't entirely agree with you. Here in the UK, there is growing concern at the amount of advertising that is being targeted specifically at children. This is not because their parents use money as a "quality time substitute", although doubtless some do. The concern arises precisely because it leads to children pestering their parents to buy them <insert latest must-have item here>. The advertising agencies even have a term for it - "pester power".
You do make a valid point that some parents give their children far too much money, and for the wrong reasons. However, do not be too quick to suggest stopping this as a way to stop advertisers targetting children, because it won't. If anything, it'll just cause them to increase the amonut of advertising targetted at kids, to step up the pressure on the parents.
I'm doing my part to smash the state and capitalism.
Then surely you would welcome a law that attempts to restrict a company's ability to make money by exploiting children, the most vulnerable members of society?:-)
Okay, if the offset is in altitude, not the position on the ground, then couldn't you just target your missile for a spot above the target, then guide it down at it?
(Don't think "along, then down", think "up, arcing over, and down", kinda like a mortar with last minute targetting correction)
Hehe - the only trouble with your idea is that it'll probably cause more crashes than it prevents, as your victims flap about wondering what's happened to their 'phones:-)
It certainly has merit, though - a few times I've been on a bus only to find the driver is using his mobile - taking your own life (and that of anyone you hit) into your own hands is one thing, but the lives of a couple of dozen passengers? Talk about irresponsible...
Yup, the situation with the TV licence is the same.
As for the cable channels, though, while it's true that I'm paying for the connection, the more channels I get, the more I pay, so in a sense, I am paying for the channels. It's not a great increase (unless I choose some of the "premium" channels, like the Sky Movie and Sport channels - I don't know whether or not they carry ads, but I assume so), but it's still more money for more channels.
This is also how TV works (you can get free TV with ads, or premium/rental services without).
Not in the UK, you can't...
Regardless of what you use it for, if you own equipment capable of receiving a television broadcast, you must own a TV Licence (at a cost of ~100stlg/year). True, 2 (out of 5) of our "standard" (ie non-cable, non-satellite) channels are ad-free, but the rest most certainly are not.
On top of that, I have cable TV with one of the UK's larger providers, which (with the selection of channels I get) costs me approx 20stlg/month - and every channel carries adverts.
An opt-in system for advertising would be nice, but I can't see it being effective. Qualcomm recently released the new version of Eudora Pro with an additional option - Light, Pro, or Sponsored. In Sponsored mode, you get all the features of the Pro version, "paid for" by a little advert about 1 inch square in the bottom left corner of the window. Unfortunately, it still nags you to register it every so often... I can see even the best opt-in advertising schemes being the same; pay more not to get adverts, but get pestered to accept them (which, of course, is just advertising for the opt-in scheme...)
Uh, maybe I'm doing something wrong (like using the Win32 version;-)), but www.gmx.de renders perfectly well for me in M15...
I've yet to get the Linux version home to try it out (forced to use NT at work...), but under Windows at least, the page looks fine (and it renders damn fast, too)
Unless, of course, you buy the patent itself. As IP is just another form of property there is, presumably, nothing to stop the owner from signing over all rights to another person/corp, for a suitably agreed sum of money (or other renumeration).
However, in this example, you would not then be able to sue Amazon, unless the terms of the sale did not allow them to continue to use the technology. You also presumably would not be able to just break whatever contracts Amazon had with its licencees; IANAL, but that would not seem right to me (not that that usually seems to make a great deal of difference...).
Cheers,
Tim
Re:ATM charged, and found guilty..
on
QNX Crypt Cracked
·
· Score: 1
That sort of thing (foo charging you, then bar charging you for using foo's ATM, not theirs) was proposed recently by a group comprising most of the UK's high street banks (and some of the smaller ones, IIRC).
It resulted in such a public uproar that the plans were eventually scrapped. (It even had members of Parliament speaking out against it:-) )
Fortunately, even big business does, sometimes, listen to the little people (you just need to get an awful lot of little people together to make enough noise to be heard...)
You have raised a very good point, and one that I was sorry not to see mentioned in the article. The first reaction of some companies when a security exploit is reported publicly is to go into full-on damage limitation mode, by denying that there is any problem. In the current stock market climate especially, where technology stocks are dropping like the proverbial stone, companies are going to be engaging in face-saving activities more and more often.
Sure, they may well quietly assign a developer (or a team of them) to tracking down and fixing the problem, but the people who are actually using the software will not be taking the precautions that they should be to protect themselves. In the time it takes for the company to own up to the problem, unnecessary, avoidable damage will have been done. (Or if it was unavoidable, at least people would've known that they were taking a risk.)
I'm not saying that this sort of thing happens very often now, but with hordes of stock holders to pacify, you can be pretty sure that it'll happen more often in the future.
As I understand it, in the US, ISPs enjoy "common carrier" status, and so are not responsible for the content on their servers. If you want to sue someone, you sue the author, if you can find them... In the UK, ISPs have been ruled to be more akin to publishers, who are fair game for legal action under our libel laws.
You know, they had lasers sitting around in research labs for years before anyone could think of anything practical to do with them.
Now, you have CD players, DVD players, laser surgery...
No, I can't think of any real, practical uses for this sort of thing - but you can bet that someone will.
Oh, and before you get all riled up about the amount of money being spent on this, let me assure you, it's peanuts compared to what is already being spent on medical research. Diverting the funds really wouldn't make a great deal of difference. I don't have any figures to back that up, but here in the UK, the NHS's bill due to litigation brought about by patients is about 2 billion pounds (IIRC); people not suing would free up an awful lot more money than people not doing research that you can't think of a use for.
The shell account idea is good, but would cost more than just putting up with downloading the spam - those things don't come cheap, at least not compared to free (basic) dial-up access. This is what the majority of providers in the UK offer - they make their money by taking a slice of the call charges we pay, and so probably aren't that worried about "the odd bit of spam here and there"...
A computer printer that was originally designed more than 150 years ago has finally been built and will go on display at the Science Museum in London, UK.
And I thought getting hardware support for Linux took a long time!
I think that people generally want "impersonal" information to be free (the activities of large corporations and governments, new technology/software/etc that would be of benefit to all, etc), whilst giving people the option of keeping their personal information private.
Personally, I don't see anything hypocritical in that - you can have my source code, but you can't have my address or buying habits.
Of course, there are people who seem to have things a little mixed up, and care only for their own privacy, but hopefully, they're a very small minority.
because the Internet will undercut you with its effective $0 distribution cost.
But I too can distribute the software over the internet, so I have a £0 distribution cost. The real problem is that with 1 person selling something, they get 100% of the profits; with 100 people selling it...
As you say, it's hard to imagine a way of making money out of Open Source software without making most if not all of it on support, training, etc.
Still, my original point does hold - you can sell OS software; just don't expect to get rich doing it:-)
Thanks for the tip; unfortunatley, I only use Windows (for anything other than games:-) ) at work, and it's already been made perfectly clear to us that we do not get to choose what (OS) we run on our machines. If we did, this wouldn't be a problem;-)
Of course, now there are a bunch of Win32 developers out there whining about this behavior, insisting that their app is so important it must pop up in the foreground, no matter what you, a lowly (l)user might think.
That is part of what irritates me about it - who gave them the right to tell me what is and isn't important on my computer?;-) Of course, the most annoying thing is when it happens while I'm typing, and I hit space/some other hot key before it registers, and dismiss it/start some action - especially when I'm entering a passphrase, lose my place, and have to start again. Maybe I should have shorter passphrases:- )
Personally, one of the things I absolutely adore about Linux is that so many things are customisable to a degree simply not permitted by Windows.
From an everday usage point of view, the thing I most hate about Windows is the tendency for new windows to jump to the top and steal the focus. It drives me absoutely crazy, and yet, I have found no way of disabling the feature (if anyone knows of one, please let me know!!)
Not so under Linux - with WindowMaker and Enlightenment at least, this and a whole host of other features are completely customisable. I can set it up just the way I like it - I can even have shaped window borders, which I love (yes, I know you can have similar things under Windows, but so far, I've only found two programs - WinAmp and Yamp - that allow you to do this...).
The same thing applies to skins. Yes, I know that there are an almost unbelievable number of bad ones out there - but no-one is forcing you to use them. The ability to apply a skin/theme to a program lets the user make it look more pleasing to them, which helps make using it more enjoyable. More often than not in my experience, the default skin/theme(s) that ship with any given program (mp3 player, window manager, whatever) are "plain but functional" at best. That's fine; I'd much rather the programmer(s) concentrate on getting it working well than looking pretty. Let others do that; after all, that's part of the Open Source way:-)
I agree that we need to be careful about designing UIs, to try to make them as easy to use as possible, but that shouldn't be at the expense of customisability and aesthetic considerations. Surely good software can look good too?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but as bad as sofware like CyberPatrol undoubtably is, bringing in laws banning sites that the "moral majority" don't like would be worse. Not just because of free speech issues, or the impossibility of censoring the entire net (unless America were to cut itself off from the rest of it), but because it sets a dangerous precedent.
Okay, so this year, it's porn sites that are evil and must be destroyed. What will it be next year? Sites "promoting" homosexuality? Some other lifestyle that the "moral" majority doesn't like? Open Source software? ("Look at it! It undermines our entire Capitalist way of life! They're just giving it away!! Think of the poor software corporations!!")
Yeah, I know I'm paranoid, but it's better to be paranoid and wrong, than complacent and wrong...
Cheers,
Tim
True, mid-air nuclear blasts are more destructive (I guess it gives a pressure wave enough space to form), but I was thinking more along the lines of "conventional" weapons, rather than nukes.
:-)
With a non-nuclear missile, you really do need to be pretty accurate if you want to be sure of destroying the target, unless you throw lots of explosives at it, and I was kind of assuming that it was this type of missile that the GPS offset was designed to hinder. After all, with the exception of hardened targets, detonating a nuke 200 feet or 500 feet above the target isn't going to make a great deal of difference; either way, there isn't going to be much of it left
Cheers,
Tim
Yeah, but lower-end machines are targeted at people with less money to spend on them, and who therefore will be more receptive to the idea of saving a few 10s of bucks at the expense of a "little" available CPU power.
:-)
(Assuming, of course, that it occurs to them that that'll be the net result).
Remember, low end machines must be (relatively) cheap; if you're already paying 2000USD for your PC, and want a DSL router with it, you're not going to worry too much about whether it adds 150USD or 200USD to the price. If you're paying 1000USD for the PC, that extra 50USD is more of a concern.
Of course, that doesn't mean that it makes sense to put that much extra load on the sort of CPU that comes in a low-end machine, but hey!
Cheers,
Tim
True, except that, for now at least, I'd guess that most people with broadband access at home are geeks. Pretty much all the geeks I know use an OS other than Windows at least some of the time, and some have their own mini-LANs (and, in the case of one sysadmin, not-so-mini LAN :-) ), with at least a router-type machine running "not Windows".
Also, while I agree that it's rare to see a modem in an office, it's going to get more common to see offices with DSL connections...
Hey, maybe I'm being too optimistic, but it'd be nbice to think that, as alternatives to Windows grow in popularity, companies are going to start considering supporting them to be a financially viable option.
Cheers,
Tim
You know, even 5-15% translates to a hell of a lot of money when you consider how large the computer market is...
Cheers,
Tim
(Note for those browsing at +1: I'm replying to an AC's reply to dcrowleyts, not his/her post)
:-)
Well, you certainly have the right idea, although I think that you could possibly have worded it a little better
However, it is something of a thorny issue. Speaking as a parent myself (I have a 5 month old daughter), I agree that the government (in my case, that of the UK) has no place telling me how to raise my child. I intend to be a responsible parent, as does my partner (no, we're not married), and so I do not require laws like this to protect my daughter.
Unfortunately, the sad fact is that, as dcrowleyts pointed out, some parents seem to have largely abdicated responsibility for their offspring. As it is impractical to identify and point out to these parents the error of their ways (and do we even have the right to?), something does need to be done to protect their children from unscrupulous marketeers (and worse...).
I am not against the aims of this law, but I am saddened that America has so little faith in its parents that it feels it necessary to legislate to protect its children when the parents themselves should be doing it.
Cheers,
Tim
Don't blame the marketeers entirely. If parents exercised some responsibility in this area the justification for targeting penniless waifs would dry up and blow away.
I don't entirely agree with you. Here in the UK, there is growing concern at the amount of advertising that is being targeted specifically at children. This is not because their parents use money as a "quality time substitute", although doubtless some do. The concern arises precisely because it leads to children pestering their parents to buy them <insert latest must-have item here>. The advertising agencies even have a term for it - "pester power".
You do make a valid point that some parents give their children far too much money, and for the wrong reasons. However, do not be too quick to suggest stopping this as a way to stop advertisers targetting children, because it won't. If anything, it'll just cause them to increase the amonut of advertising targetted at kids, to step up the pressure on the parents.
Cheers,
Tim
I'm doing my part to smash the state and capitalism.
:-)
Then surely you would welcome a law that attempts to restrict a company's ability to make money by exploiting children, the most vulnerable members of society?
Cheers,
Tim
Okay, if the offset is in altitude, not the position on the ground, then couldn't you just target your missile for a spot above the target, then guide it down at it?
(Don't think "along, then down", think "up, arcing over, and down", kinda like a mortar with last minute targetting correction)
Cheers,
Tim
Hehe - the only trouble with your idea is that it'll probably cause more crashes than it prevents, as your victims flap about wondering what's happened to their 'phones :-)
It certainly has merit, though - a few times I've been on a bus only to find the driver is using his mobile - taking your own life (and that of anyone you hit) into your own hands is one thing, but the lives of a couple of dozen passengers? Talk about irresponsible...
Cheers,
Tim
Yup, the situation with the TV licence is the same.
As for the cable channels, though, while it's true that I'm paying for the connection, the more channels I get, the more I pay, so in a sense, I am paying for the channels. It's not a great increase (unless I choose some of the "premium" channels, like the Sky Movie and Sport channels - I don't know whether or not they carry ads, but I assume so), but it's still more money for more channels.
Cheers,
Tim
Uh, that'll be the precompiled binary release of Perl, as opposed to the source code release, yeah?
:-) )
Nothing to do with Perl manipulating binary files...
(Although I guess there's nothing to stop you doing it, if that's the way your brain works
Cheers,
Tim
This is also how TV works (you can get free TV with ads, or premium/rental services without).
Not in the UK, you can't...
Regardless of what you use it for, if you own equipment capable of receiving a television broadcast, you must own a TV Licence (at a cost of ~100stlg/year). True, 2 (out of 5) of our "standard" (ie non-cable, non-satellite) channels are ad-free, but the rest most certainly are not.
On top of that, I have cable TV with one of the UK's larger providers, which (with the selection of channels I get) costs me approx 20stlg/month - and every channel carries adverts.
An opt-in system for advertising would be nice, but I can't see it being effective. Qualcomm recently released the new version of Eudora Pro with an additional option - Light, Pro, or Sponsored. In Sponsored mode, you get all the features of the Pro version, "paid for" by a little advert about 1 inch square in the bottom left corner of the window. Unfortunately, it still nags you to register it every so often... I can see even the best opt-in advertising schemes being the same; pay more not to get adverts, but get pestered to accept them (which, of course, is just advertising for the opt-in scheme...)
Cheers,
Tim
Uh, maybe I'm doing something wrong (like using the Win32 version ;-)), but www.gmx.de renders perfectly well for me in M15...
I've yet to get the Linux version home to try it out (forced to use NT at work...), but under Windows at least, the page looks fine (and it renders damn fast, too)
Cheers,
Tim
You're buying a license.
Unless, of course, you buy the patent itself. As IP is just another form of property there is, presumably, nothing to stop the owner from signing over all rights to another person/corp, for a suitably agreed sum of money (or other renumeration).
However, in this example, you would not then be able to sue Amazon, unless the terms of the sale did not allow them to continue to use the technology. You also presumably would not be able to just break whatever contracts Amazon had with its licencees; IANAL, but that would not seem right to me (not that that usually seems to make a great deal of difference...).
Cheers,
Tim
That sort of thing (foo charging you, then bar charging you for using foo's ATM, not theirs) was proposed recently by a group comprising most of the UK's high street banks (and some of the smaller ones, IIRC).
:-) )
It resulted in such a public uproar that the plans were eventually scrapped. (It even had members of Parliament speaking out against it
Fortunately, even big business does, sometimes, listen to the little people (you just need to get an awful lot of little people together to make enough noise to be heard...)
Cheers,
Tim
You have raised a very good point, and one that I was sorry not to see mentioned in the article.
The first reaction of some companies when a security exploit is reported publicly is to go into full-on damage limitation mode, by denying that there is any problem. In the current stock market climate especially, where technology stocks are dropping like the proverbial stone, companies are going to be engaging in face-saving activities more and more often.
Sure, they may well quietly assign a developer (or a team of them) to tracking down and fixing the problem, but the people who are actually using the software will not be taking the precautions that they should be to protect themselves. In the time it takes for the company to own up to the problem, unnecessary, avoidable damage will have been done. (Or if it was unavoidable, at least people would've known that they were taking a risk.)
I'm not saying that this sort of thing happens very often now, but with hordes of stock holders to pacify, you can be pretty sure that it'll happen more often in the future.
Cheers,
Tim
As I understand it, in the US, ISPs enjoy "common carrier" status, and so are not responsible for the content on their servers. If you want to sue someone, you sue the author, if you can find them... In the UK, ISPs have been ruled to be more akin to publishers, who are fair game for legal action under our libel laws.
Cheers,
Tim
You know, they had lasers sitting around in research labs for years before anyone could think of anything practical to do with them.
Now, you have CD players, DVD players, laser surgery...
No, I can't think of any real, practical uses for this sort of thing - but you can bet that someone will.
Oh, and before you get all riled up about the amount of money being spent on this, let me assure you, it's peanuts compared to what is already being spent on medical research. Diverting the funds really wouldn't make a great deal of difference. I don't have any figures to back that up, but here in the UK, the NHS's bill due to litigation brought about by patients is about 2 billion pounds (IIRC); people not suing would free up an awful lot more money than people not doing research that you can't think of a use for.
Cheers,
Tim
The shell account idea is good, but would cost more than just putting up with downloading the spam - those things don't come cheap, at least not compared to free (basic) dial-up access. This is what the majority of providers in the UK offer - they make their money by taking a slice of the call charges we pay, and so probably aren't that worried about "the odd bit of spam here and there"...
Cheers,
Tim
A computer printer that was originally designed more than 150 years ago has finally been built and will go on display at the Science Museum in London, UK.
:) )
And I thought getting hardware support for Linux took a long time!
(Sorry, couldn't resist it
Cheers,
Tim
I think that people generally want "impersonal" information to be free (the activities of large corporations and governments, new technology/software/etc that would be of benefit to all, etc), whilst giving people the option of keeping their personal information private.
Personally, I don't see anything hypocritical in that - you can have my source code, but you can't have my address or buying habits.
Of course, there are people who seem to have things a little mixed up, and care only for their own privacy, but hopefully, they're a very small minority.
Cheers,
Tim
because the Internet will undercut you with its effective $0 distribution cost.
:-)
But I too can distribute the software over the internet, so I have a £0 distribution cost.
The real problem is that with 1 person selling something, they get 100% of the profits; with 100 people selling it...
As you say, it's hard to imagine a way of making money out of Open Source software without making most if not all of it on support, training, etc.
Still, my original point does hold - you can sell OS software; just don't expect to get rich doing it
Cheers,
Tim
Thanks for the tip; unfortunatley, I only use Windows (for anything other than games :-) ) at work, and it's already been made perfectly clear to us that we do not get to choose what (OS) we run on our machines. If we did, this wouldn't be a problem ;-)
;-) :- )
Of course, now there are a bunch of Win32 developers out there whining about this behavior, insisting that their app is so important it must pop up in the foreground, no matter what you, a lowly (l)user might think.
That is part of what irritates me about it - who gave them the right to tell me what is and isn't important on my computer?
Of course, the most annoying thing is when it happens while I'm typing, and I hit space/some other hot key before it registers, and dismiss it/start some action - especially when I'm entering a passphrase, lose my place, and have to start again. Maybe I should have shorter passphrases
Cheers,
Tim
Personally, one of the things I absolutely adore about Linux is that so many things are customisable to a degree simply not permitted by Windows.
:-)
From an everday usage point of view, the thing I most hate about Windows is the tendency for new windows to jump to the top and steal the focus. It drives me absoutely crazy, and yet, I have found no way of disabling the feature (if anyone knows of one, please let me know!!)
Not so under Linux - with WindowMaker and Enlightenment at least, this and a whole host of other features are completely customisable. I can set it up just the way I like it - I can even have shaped window borders, which I love (yes, I know you can have similar things under Windows, but so far, I've only found two programs - WinAmp and Yamp - that allow you to do this...).
The same thing applies to skins. Yes, I know that there are an almost unbelievable number of bad ones out there - but no-one is forcing you to use them. The ability to apply a skin/theme to a program lets the user make it look more pleasing to them, which helps make using it more enjoyable. More often than not in my experience, the default skin/theme(s) that ship with any given program (mp3 player, window manager, whatever) are "plain but functional" at best. That's fine; I'd much rather the programmer(s) concentrate on getting it working well than looking pretty. Let others do that; after all, that's part of the Open Source way
I agree that we need to be careful about designing UIs, to try to make them as easy to use as possible, but that shouldn't be at the expense of customisability and aesthetic considerations.
Surely good software can look good too?
Cheers,
Tim