Definitely separate dimensions. More than two, though.
It's about focus and the amount of care taken. If someone cares about aesthetics, then they tend to make more aesthetic things. If they care about functionality, then they will make things with greater functionality. If they care about robustness, they will make things that are more robust. If they care about speed, they will make things faster. If they care about cost, they will make things more cheaply. Not all of these things can be combined, of course.
It just seems to me that Slashdot regularly direct people's attention off to other sites. I suppose that Slashdot does tend to coopt individual sites' comment forums, so in that way they do compete. But they also send a huge amount of traffic to other sites that they might not otherwise get.
More to the point, if there were no LinuxWorld-type sites out there, Slashdot would never be what it is.
Are Slashdot and Linux World really competition for each other? Slashdot is a discussion and news aggregation site, where Linux World actually produces content itself.
One of the benefits Peter got along with his Spider powers is that his eyesight improved, so he no longer needed glasses. With his powers failing, his eyesight was returning to its former poor level.
Then there was the scene when he decided he was going to be the hero again, and his excellent eyesight came back (The blurry view through the glasses scene).
I just posted my own review of Spiderman 2 on my LJ blog.
I don't get to tell them what they call it, but I can observe what it is called by other people, including myself. And whatever they would like, it is called X-Windows.
Which is exactly my point. They made a statement "It is never called X-Windows."
That statement is logically incorrect. If they said "It should never be called X-Windows.", then fine, that is an opinion and a request. But instead, they made a supposedly factual statement, which is patently untrue, and easily disproven. I call it X-Windows, many people I know call it X-Windows, I was introduced to it back in the 80's as X-Windows.
It is called X-Windows. No matter what the authors want.
but they're also wrong. It is called X-Windows, and it has been called X-Windows since the very earliest implementation. "X" is too short to be meaningful, and "X Windowing System" is too much of a mouthful.
It'd be interesting someone wrote an extension for Moz/Firefox called "IE-level Security" or "QuickInstall", which allowed other extensions to be installed secretly. "Get rid of those annoying confirmation dialogs!"
I wonder how many people would actually install such a thing?
I suspect a lot.
Re:Percy Schmeiser in his own words
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
And do they pay compensation for the loss of Organic Food certification that will result from their use of chemicals?
Well, not quite SCO's position. SCO don't have the patents, and haven't sunk the money into R&D themselves. Even under the fairly grasping economic theory that companies should have the right to recoup their R&D costs, SCO have very little justification.
Honestly, I don't think it's all that likely that Microsoft will stop making money from products. They might perhaps make less money from products, and become a slightly smaller company, but they're not likely to be in a similar position to SCO for a very long time.
Ah, now that you mention it, I do have a vague recollection of that.
You make some very good points that needed to be discussed, apart from the regular "Yet another ridiculous, obvious patent" comments.
What a shame. Just when I was thinking there was something decent about Microsoft's behaviour.
Hang on, how would what you describe at the end there still be an abuse of the patent system? Can you think of any other way to avoid being hurt by patents?
I would call that an ethical use of the patent system, while still maintaining that the patent system is severly broken, and needs a major overhaul.
I think is the question of whether they even TRY to enforce them.
Microsoft have an excellent record as far as I know, of never initiating a patent battle. MS' patent portfolio is used purely for defensive purposes.
Sure, they're anti-competitive greedy bastards, and they may decide to start trying patent litigation some day, but I think they're happier making their money by selling products.
On the other hand, without him knowing about the phone call, he would have tried the same thing as the previous store and been caught because of the phone call.
I suspect that what he tried to do would have failed even without the call. Cash rooms tend to get much better security than warehouses.
You seem to have taken a mostly out-dated opinion on Lotus Notes and applied it to the Gimp, which you admit to never having used.
Lotus Notes has lost most of the usability problems that people disliked about it over the last couple of major revisions. Regardless of that, I would dispute that it is "widely recognised by nearly everyone who has used it as an unusable piece of crap." On the contrary, I think the majority of people who use it for more than a couple of weeks find its interface to be quite effective.
GUI style guides are great for helping people to use an unfamiliar program, but slavishly following any guidelines can quite easily make regular usage a pain in the neck. For example, all serious Notes users quickly decide to turn off the "welcome page" layer that gives Notes a more "standard" interface for mail. It only gets in the way for power users.
The Gimp diverges from standards to give icons on the system bar for its separate dialogs, which is actually exactly what you need when working on large images that cover the entire screen.Ever tried to switch to a diffent app and go back to a Windows File Properties Dialog?
Many of the UI problems being discussed about the Gimp are referring to the previous version. The latest version is looking much nicer, and is also closer to style guidelines.
The article complains about the fact that it doesn't use the Mac guidelines, which is hardly surprising, given that it hasn't been ported to the Mac! If he wants his X11 apps to look like Mac apps, he'd need to talk to the person writing the X11 interface for the Mac.
It would only really be version 8, I think. Remember it jumped from 2 to 6.
Actually, yes, I do want it to interoperate in that way. If I pull an old document out of archival for some reason, then I want to be able to read it. I especially don't want to have to contact a system administrator to re-install Office for me when scrambling to get this old information brought back and sent to whoever needs it.
The point is, as many others have mentioned, there is no single ".doc" format. There are several, and there's no way to tell which format a particular.doc is in, other than by trial and error.
Therefore, the claim that OO.o is deficient because it can't always read all.doc files can be equally applied to MSO.
This would be a great argument, if it weren't for the fact that there is no single.doc format, but rather a series of them. Different versions of Word are not always able to read.doc files correctly, either. Try opening an old Word for Windows 1.0.doc file in a standard Office XP install.
Even worse, how about one of the new XML-based.doc files from Office XP in Word 97?
Or you might need to enable encryption on the Samba box. XP doesn't communicate without it. That was what I found when I first added an XP box to a Samba network.
You're not seeing what I'm saying. Yes, you can merge any code that is released under the BSD. My point is that it is up to the author of the derivative code whether I am allowed to merge changes back into my original codebase.
GPL does not give the authors of derivative works that choice, thus giving me a right to merge from them. I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm pointing out the difference in a way that most people don't seem to think of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Definitely separate dimensions. More than two, though.
It's about focus and the amount of care taken. If someone cares about aesthetics, then they tend to make more aesthetic things. If they care about functionality, then they will make things with greater functionality. If they care about robustness, they will make things that are more robust. If they care about speed, they will make things faster. If they care about cost, they will make things more cheaply. Not all of these things can be combined, of course.
It just seems to me that Slashdot regularly direct people's attention off to other sites. I suppose that Slashdot does tend to coopt individual sites' comment forums, so in that way they do compete. But they also send a huge amount of traffic to other sites that they might not otherwise get.
More to the point, if there were no LinuxWorld-type sites out there, Slashdot would never be what it is.
Are Slashdot and Linux World really competition for each other? Slashdot is a discussion and news aggregation site, where Linux World actually produces content itself.
One of the benefits Peter got along with his Spider powers is that his eyesight improved, so he no longer needed glasses. With his powers failing, his eyesight was returning to its former poor level.
Then there was the scene when he decided he was going to be the hero again, and his excellent eyesight came back (The blurry view through the glasses scene).
I just posted my own review of Spiderman 2 on my LJ blog.
I don't get to tell them what they call it, but I can observe what it is called by other people, including myself. And whatever they would like, it is called X-Windows.
Which is exactly my point. They made a statement "It is never called X-Windows."
That statement is logically incorrect. If they said "It should never be called X-Windows.", then fine, that is an opinion and a request. But instead, they made a supposedly factual statement, which is patently untrue, and easily disproven. I call it X-Windows, many people I know call it X-Windows, I was introduced to it back in the 80's as X-Windows.
It is called X-Windows. No matter what the authors want.
but they're also wrong. It is called X-Windows, and it has been called X-Windows since the very earliest implementation. "X" is too short to be meaningful, and "X Windowing System" is too much of a mouthful.
I do wish they'd get over it.
It'd be interesting someone wrote an extension for Moz/Firefox called "IE-level Security" or "QuickInstall", which allowed other extensions to be installed secretly. "Get rid of those annoying confirmation dialogs!"
I wonder how many people would actually install such a thing?
I suspect a lot.
And do they pay compensation for the loss of Organic Food certification that will result from their use of chemicals?
Not to mention the fact that it's still sitting on its castors, so if he takes a hard left turn, It'll roll around the back.
It's a joke. Laugh and move on.
Well, not quite SCO's position. SCO don't have the patents, and haven't sunk the money into R&D themselves. Even under the fairly grasping economic theory that companies should have the right to recoup their R&D costs, SCO have very little justification.
Honestly, I don't think it's all that likely that Microsoft will stop making money from products. They might perhaps make less money from products, and become a slightly smaller company, but they're not likely to be in a similar position to SCO for a very long time.
How long are patents valid for, these days?
Ah, now that you mention it, I do have a vague recollection of that.
You make some very good points that needed to be discussed, apart from the regular "Yet another ridiculous, obvious patent" comments.
What a shame. Just when I was thinking there was something decent about Microsoft's behaviour.
Hang on, how would what you describe at the end there still be an abuse of the patent system? Can you think of any other way to avoid being hurt by patents?
I would call that an ethical use of the patent system, while still maintaining that the patent system is severly broken, and needs a major overhaul.
Can you give examples? I can't recall ever hearing about Microsoft even threatening a patent lawsuit, and I'm sure it would get out if they did.
Seriously, I'd like to know. I'm no MS apologist, but I believe in giving them all the acclaim for the ethical things they get right as I can.
I think is the question of whether they even TRY to enforce them.
Microsoft have an excellent record as far as I know, of never initiating a patent battle. MS' patent portfolio is used purely for defensive purposes.
Sure, they're anti-competitive greedy bastards, and they may decide to start trying patent litigation some day, but I think they're happier making their money by selling products.
Except that the "unexpected" target he went for is actually a fairly normal target, which would tend to be protected better than other places anyway.
It was a bad choice of target.
On the other hand, without him knowing about the phone call, he would have tried the same thing as the previous store and been caught because of the phone call.
I suspect that what he tried to do would have failed even without the call. Cash rooms tend to get much better security than warehouses.
That's the most remarkable thing I see. That this project is close enough to functional to become a developer's main OS.
That's a pretty big step.
Wonder how long before it's ready for gaming?
Yahoogroups.com
Lots of good lists, but also plenty of spam lists. Do you whitelist them, or not?
The engine is behind the rear wheels, not in front of them. That makes it a rear-engine, like the old VW beetle and Porsche 911s.
You seem to have taken a mostly out-dated opinion on Lotus Notes and applied it to the Gimp, which you admit to never having used.
Lotus Notes has lost most of the usability problems that people disliked about it over the last couple of major revisions. Regardless of that, I would dispute that it is "widely recognised by nearly everyone who has used it as an unusable piece of crap." On the contrary, I think the majority of people who use it for more than a couple of weeks find its interface to be quite effective.
GUI style guides are great for helping people to use an unfamiliar program, but slavishly following any guidelines can quite easily make regular usage a pain in the neck. For example, all serious Notes users quickly decide to turn off the "welcome page" layer that gives Notes a more "standard" interface for mail. It only gets in the way for power users.
The Gimp diverges from standards to give icons on the system bar for its separate dialogs, which is actually exactly what you need when working on large images that cover the entire screen.Ever tried to switch to a diffent app and go back to a Windows File Properties Dialog?
Many of the UI problems being discussed about the Gimp are referring to the previous version. The latest version is looking much nicer, and is also closer to style guidelines.
The article complains about the fact that it doesn't use the Mac guidelines, which is hardly surprising, given that it hasn't been ported to the Mac! If he wants his X11 apps to look like Mac apps, he'd need to talk to the person writing the X11 interface for the Mac.
So does this "emerge" step require a stable internet connection? I only have dial-up internet, unfortunately.
It would only really be version 8, I think. Remember it jumped from 2 to 6.
.doc is in, other than by trial and error.
.doc files can be equally applied to MSO.
Actually, yes, I do want it to interoperate in that way. If I pull an old document out of archival for some reason, then I want to be able to read it. I especially don't want to have to contact a system administrator to re-install Office for me when scrambling to get this old information brought back and sent to whoever needs it.
The point is, as many others have mentioned, there is no single ".doc" format. There are several, and there's no way to tell which format a particular
Therefore, the claim that OO.o is deficient because it can't always read all
This would be a great argument, if it weren't for the fact that there is no single .doc format, but rather a series of them. Different versions of Word are not always able to read .doc files correctly, either. Try opening an old Word for Windows 1.0 .doc file in a standard Office XP install.
.doc files from Office XP in Word 97?
Even worse, how about one of the new XML-based
Or you might need to enable encryption on the Samba box. XP doesn't communicate without it. That was what I found when I first added an XP box to a Samba network.
You're not seeing what I'm saying. Yes, you can merge any code that is released under the BSD. My point is that it is up to the author of the derivative code whether I am allowed to merge changes back into my original codebase.
GPL does not give the authors of derivative works that choice, thus giving me a right to merge from them. I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm pointing out the difference in a way that most people don't seem to think of it.