Of course all databases have some problems like... making it unnecessarily difficult to drop tables (PostgreSQL)...
Huh? mydb=# drop table <tablename>;
Works fine for me... I've only been using PGSQL for a year or so, is there something I've been missing? If anything, dropping tables is a bit too easy.;-)
At first I thought you meant that the webcal:// links wouldn't open in Mozilla's calendar, then I realized you probably meant you visited the page with mozilla, clicked a link, and iCal wasn't alerted. Is that right? I first thought it was an apple/microsoft explorer/ical exil/monopoly thing, then the answer hit me. Unfortunately, the answer only works for Explorer which, we already know, doesn't have the problem. In IE, there are two things in the prefs (command-semicolon) that let you deal with non-http and non-html: receiving files:file helpers, for file (mime) types, and network:protocol helpers, which decides how to handle mailto:, ftp://, gopher://, etc. links. Mozilla 1.1 only has the MIME dialog. If you can find out how to make Mozilla open Eudora or Outlook instead of itself when you click mailto: links, you'll be on the right path.
Come to think of it, how did you *ever* do this with Netscape? I have never browsed much on a Mac, except IE at work, where I rarely click mailto: links. At home, I use Eudora, but when I clicked on a mailto: link in Netscape, I was happy to use NS to compose and send the message. In IE for Mac and Win you can choose what app to launch for email. Hmmm...
The guy who responded with a link to http://protozilla.mozdev.org/ might be on the right track, but it seems like overkill.
You can try figuring out what MIME type apple is serving the.ics files as and set that in Mozilla's options, but I think Moz will get stuck on the webcal:// part before it starts worrying about the mime type.
I never thought it had to do with minimizing/maximizing, I thought it just swapped apps that a) weren't in the fireground and b) only when it needed to (or c) if you don't have enough RAM to run your foreground app anyway.) In any case, no, I rarely minimize apps, I just run them full screen and use the taskbar or alt-tab to get around. And no, I can have a dozen Explorer or Netscape windows in the background and when I bring them to the foreground there's a much, much shorter (1-2 seconds vs. 10-15) amount of time before they wake up. I'm not saying Mozilla is bad in general, just that it doesn't perform as well under Windows. Is M$ evil? Sure. Does Mozilla work great on other platforms? Sure. Does that change the fact that Mozilla in Winodws performs worse in some ways than other browsers? No. Most programs have flaws (or just plain things you don't like) that you have to learn a workaround for. For me, this is Mozilla's.
When you've been using web browsers for 7 years, and you try a new one and use it the exact same way you always have, things like this jump out at you. It's not like I spend all my time at w3.org or tuxedo.org and now I'm going to cnn with Mozilla and complaining that it's slow. Same sites, same number of windows open, different performance.
By the way, *every* OS swaps if it needs to. (unless you issue swapoff, ha, but that just makes things wose.) Run Gnome on a PII/266 with 64 MB and a slow hard drive (like my laptop) with a few apps open if you don't believe me. When I'm *using* mozilla, it runs like a champ, it's just when I leave it alone for a while that things get bad, and then it's worse than other similar apps.
OTOH, it kicks IE5/Mac's ass when it comes to rendering 1MB+ worth of HTML--6 seconds vs. 22 on an in-house test page. (That same page in Windows opens in 6 seconds in Moz, vs. <3 seconds for IE5. c'est la vie.)
I agree with the original poster. I have a PIII/733 w/ 256 MB RAM. Try this: run Moz for a while. Open up several or many tabs/windows, then leave them open and do other stuff for a while. Then, start switching between Moz and other apps and you should see the slowness. I've seen it take 15+ seconds to get back, and I've only been using it a few days. (I'm using the IE theme, if it matters... shouldn't, but might.) It's great for some things, like browsing slashdot's front page and middle-clicking to open all links in a new tab in the background. Very, very nice. But leaving it open with several windows while I write code in Homesite and make images in Photoshop? Death on a stick, and I'm using it just like I've used IE and NS for years.
Something I've learned from endless Mac-OS-X-is-slow discussions-- don't just say 'fast' or 'slow', measure!:-) Everything is relative. My aunt thinks her Celica is fast. Having ridden in my friend's 13.17s/114mph Firebird, I know it isn't.:-) But she's happy with it.
Ha ha ha! For fun, click that link. You'll see this: ----- Ook! (title) Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled. ----- So, copy the link, then open a new window and paste. (You think you can protect your servers from the likes of us? mwa ha ha ha ha!)
I have iCal on my 10.2 Mac and Mozilla's calendar on a Win2k machine. Out of the box, they don't seem to want to read each other's.ics files. Opening them in a text editor shows they're both plain text and quite similar. Short of writing my own parser/translater in Perl or PHP, does anyone know how to get them to play well together?
In other news, http://www.apple.com/ical/library/ is a pretty sweet page. Just as a mailto: link opens your mail client with the proper info in place, they have webcal:// links that automatically open in iCal. nice.
my only problem with ical so far is the grey they use to show selected dates is sooooo close to white.
click all features, then in the top 'sort by' column, click 'free'. click a film and log in as slashdot:slashdot. (I didn't make the account, someone beat me to it.) if you want to use your own acct (or if Mr. Slashdot changes his PW) the registration is just name, email, age, gender, password, and they don't require a real address--a@a.com works just fine.:-)
Great interview, Larry, and let me be another to say "Thanks!" for Perl. My favorite line from the piece: 'Christians are fond of asking: "What would Jesus do in this situation?" Unfortunately, they very rarely come up with the correct answer, which is: "Something unexpected!"'
could that *be* more perfect?
(btw, I'm sure you've seen the.sig here on slashdot-- "WWJD? JWRTFM!")
The stability of Mac OS certainly was pretty good -- ignore the hypocrites who used to praise Mac OS but now decry it -- but it can't match Mac OS X.
Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou. I can't stand people like that, and they come with every OS. I've heard it plenty from Mac people (all along telling me how infinitely superior to Windows it is, then once Mac OS X comes out, all they have to say is that 9 was an unstable bag of shit but OS X is really it) and Linux people as well, as we went from 2.0 to 2.2 to 2.4 kernels. Also cars, video game consoles, etc etc etc. I hate those people.
Also, the rest of the article was good. I'm not a fan of OS X, but we just got out Jaguar discs in today, and I'm about to head upstairs to get mine and try it out.
Douglas Engelbart, father of just about everything 'modern' in computing, showed a chord keyboard in 1968. Do a google search for 'chord keyboard' to see how many other people are doing stuff, or 'chord keyboard douglas' to find out stuff about D.E., including RealMedia of his 1968 demo.
So, is slashdot a non-compliant site? Look at this and let me know. Seriously, I'm not baiting or trolling-- is slashdot compliant or isn't it? Because Mozilla on Mac OS 9 looks pretty crappy on most slashdot pages. The bottom three boxes are just minor font issues (still annoying on long reads) but look at the top three boxes and tell me what you think.
Apple should ship almost 4 million Unix desktops this year, and each one of them represents a new opportunity for open source ideas to take root and for products like OpenOffice.org to find users.
People are going to use free software or they aren't. The fact that they OS X has UNIX underneath (which they barely know.comprehend/care about) isn't going to compel them to do so. Furthermore, no one in Apple's target audience knows about Open Source or cares about (or could even undertand the concept of) Darwin. Just because they happen to be using OSS tools doesn't mean they know about or care about OSS in general.
Let me say this again: Joe Average user doesn't care about OSS or UNIX. How do I know? They've already shown they're happy to buy computers from closed-source vendors (Apple (OS 9 and half of X) and MS), one of whom has been found in court to be a monopoly. PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS WHEN THEY'RE BUYING COMPUTERS! They'll buy it an use it, period.
Besides, openoffice 1.0 also runs on the nine zillion (estimated) existing Windows desktops out there, much better than the OS X DR.
Final random note: I was in CompUSA and saw a couple talking to a rep about the flat-panel iMac. First question out of the customer's mouth, who apparently liked the look of the system: "Does it run XP?" That proves one of two points: 1) the customer doesn't know the difference between Apple and Intel hardware, or Apple and MS operating systems, or 2) the customer *does* know there's a difference but wants XP instead. One last time: PEOPLE a) DON'T KNOW OR b) DON'T CARE. or both.
Short answer: Classic MacOS couldn't do it in the last decade+; I don't expect X to do it now.
I've used it and it's not that great, and it is less responsive on my dual-533 than Windows 95 or Linux/ICE is on a $100 P200, or 2K/XP/Linux+KDE/Gnome on a $300 PIII/500. (Or BeOS on a P120, heh.) I've run it on two Beige G3s (a 266/224MB at work and my own 300/256; value: ~$300 according to http://www.baucomcomputers.com/ ) and it is like death, only worse. If you want a windowing UI + a UNIX CLI, get Linux or Windows+cygwin.
My first computer was an Apple II+, my second was an XT. I started using windowing UIs with a Mac, followed by Windows 3 a year later. So no, I'm not some schmuck who always used Windows, then used a Mac for 10 minutes and said "It sucks!" I started on Macs and *vastly* prefer Windows. I use 2K, OS X, and OS 9 daily.
Let me end with a link to my favorite article, which I can attest is true from daily experience. Q: What does everyone buy a computer for? A: surfing. By all means, *avoid* Macs for this. And don't respond to talk about other browsers. I've done tests and overall, they're all slower than Win or Lin. But don't take my word for it: download
this, change the code to make the colors proper hex triplets (just add '00' to the end of each) and check it out yourself. Open it off the HD to remove variances due to network speed.
I used to buy an average of 2-4 CDs per month. Less than 1/4 was new stuff, mostly I was just fulfilling my dream of owning every song I ever liked. So, I bought a lot of Greatest Hits discs, Best of the 80s, etc. However, even before I started downloading music, I was already beginning to slow down, not because I was anywhere close to achieving my goal, but because there was less and less good stuff to buy. I won't buy a $16 80s compilation just to get 2 good songs any more than I'll buy any *new* CD just to get 2 good songs off of it. Then Napster came along and life was great-- I got a lot of good old stuff that was either difficult, impossible, or economically unfeasable to buy. Given the opportunity, I would have *happily* paid $1 for _every_single_song_, assuming it's a)in a common format (like mp3) so I'm not tied to any one player and b) mine to do with as I wish--burn to CD, keep on a file server so I can get at it from anywhere in my house, etc. I would have _preferred_ that to going the Napster route and winding up with bitrates ranging from 64 to 320, badly encoded songs, songs that have a second or two of the previous or next track on the CD, etc etc etc. If they would make it easy for me to get the music I want in a format I want, they could hook an IV to my wallet and drain money out of me at a steady rate for the rest of my life. As long as they don't, fuck'em, I'll download whatever I want. This isn't a rationalization for what I'm doing. Stealing is wrong and that's exactly what I'm doing. But like I said-- fuck'em.
BTW, listen.com and rhapsody is pretty good, but not great. AFAICT, they don't have a way to download portable tracks. In the classical area you can download 10 burnable tracks per month, but that's retarded. 1) give them to me in a format that I can use as *I* want--I'm trying to move *away* from CDs, idiots! 2) why limit me to 10/month? Let me download portable files at $1 apiece and I'll spend at *least* $25/month, right now. Probably more like $50 a month to start, then $10-$20 a few months down the road. Hell, if I didn't spend $20 a *day* for the first week or two, I'd be surprised. Remember when Napster was good and you'd get 50-150 songs in a could hours? I'd do it again in a heartbeat, and happily pay as I went along.
And if they *really* wanted to clean up, they'd ship a copy of "The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits" to every new customer.
As an alternative to encrypting everything, and tying up money for years (potentially decades) fighting consumer suits demanding their first amendment rights be protected (which have always gone to the consumer, as witness the availability of blank and unencrypted VHS tapes and casettes)...
Proprietary programs should mathematically be as secure as those developed under the open-source model, a Cambridge University researcher argued in a paper presented Thursday at a technical conference in Toulouse, France.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Supporters in the Linux community have maintained that open-source programs are more secure, while Microsoft's senior vice president for Windows, Jim Allchin, argued in court that opening up Windows code would undermine security.
The two things are nowhere near the same. 'Open source development' is not at all the same thing as 'closed source development, opened up later.'
People complain about posting without reading, but that's it--if it's from news.com/ZD/etc., it's wrong.:-)
Security != number of bugs. There's 'severity of bugs' and 'speed of fixes', not to mention the OS's and software's design in the first place--think permissions, user spave vs. kernel space, etc.
There are a lot of things involved. First of all, what you think is bad and what someone else thinks is bad might be two very different things. Personally, I'd rather have malformed footers than a document that needs to be majorly reflowed. (Which OO would need anyway; Office/Windows makes the document 18 pages, Office/Mac and OO makes it 21 pages.)
But, it's just one page from one document, so it obviously can't represent every possible case. Elsewhere in the document are other problems. There's a table that runs through the margin and right off the page, trimming the ends off of words, on the Mac; OO/Win handles it fine.
I made that page to get several points across. I find it funny that M$ went out of their way to make a document that can only be read on a PC. (How many other documents have you "installed"?) Also, many people make documents much more complicated than they need to be. The more light-grey footers you add to your documents, the more trouble you'll have with *any* transition. I like the plain-text/XML-ness of OO documents.
Right now, I'm building my department's Intranet site. One of the things they want to do is make easily-available a lot of constantly-updated Word docs and Excel charts. You can click on a link to a.doc or.xls in IE/Win and it opens right up, but there is no web-browser plug-in *at all* to let you view Office docs on a Mac (except for PowerPoint, whoopdee-$#!+), which we have 300 of in our department. How nice it would be if all of those docs were zipped XML, like OO produces--we (or someone else) could just write something to dynamically unzip->parse->convert-to-html the documents--no more trying to train people "save, then resave as HTML" every time, etc.
I think two things will/should happen: 1) Home users, no longer able to steal Office from work, will start using Open Office. If your mom & dad "live in a vacuum" (that is, not a lot of document trading), get them onto OO and off of Works or that copy of Office you stole from your last job. 2) Companies of 5-25 people will probably standardize on OO, with one copy of Office in the building for translating docs that OO can't handle. (Open in MS, copy, paste into OO on the same box, save to the server.)
The plain fact is that OO will not replace M$O in the enterprise anytime soon, but I think it'll make some great strides down the road.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? ;-)
mydb=# drop table <tablename>;
Works fine for me... I've only been using PGSQL for a year or so, is there something I've been missing? If anything, dropping tables is a bit too easy.
At first I thought you meant that the webcal:// links wouldn't open in Mozilla's calendar, then I realized you probably meant you visited the page with mozilla, clicked a link, and iCal wasn't alerted. Is that right? I first thought it was an apple/microsoft explorer/ical exil/monopoly thing, then the answer hit me. Unfortunately, the answer only works for Explorer which, we already know, doesn't have the problem. In IE, there are two things in the prefs (command-semicolon) that let you deal with non-http and non-html: receiving files:file helpers, for file (mime) types, and network:protocol helpers, which decides how to handle mailto:, ftp://, gopher://, etc. links. Mozilla 1.1 only has the MIME dialog. If you can find out how to make Mozilla open Eudora or Outlook instead of itself when you click mailto: links, you'll be on the right path.
.ics files as and set that in Mozilla's options, but I think Moz will get stuck on the webcal:// part before it starts worrying about the mime type.
Come to think of it, how did you *ever* do this with Netscape? I have never browsed much on a Mac, except IE at work, where I rarely click mailto: links. At home, I use Eudora, but when I clicked on a mailto: link in Netscape, I was happy to use NS to compose and send the message. In IE for Mac and Win you can choose what app to launch for email. Hmmm...
The guy who responded with a link to http://protozilla.mozdev.org/ might be on the right track, but it seems like overkill.
You can try figuring out what MIME type apple is serving the
I never thought it had to do with minimizing/maximizing, I thought it just swapped apps that a) weren't in the fireground and b) only when it needed to (or c) if you don't have enough RAM to run your foreground app anyway.) In any case, no, I rarely minimize apps, I just run them full screen and use the taskbar or alt-tab to get around. And no, I can have a dozen Explorer or Netscape windows in the background and when I bring them to the foreground there's a much, much shorter (1-2 seconds vs. 10-15) amount of time before they wake up. I'm not saying Mozilla is bad in general, just that it doesn't perform as well under Windows. Is M$ evil? Sure. Does Mozilla work great on other platforms? Sure. Does that change the fact that Mozilla in Winodws performs worse in some ways than other browsers? No. Most programs have flaws (or just plain things you don't like) that you have to learn a workaround for. For me, this is Mozilla's.
When you've been using web browsers for 7 years, and you try a new one and use it the exact same way you always have, things like this jump out at you. It's not like I spend all my time at w3.org or tuxedo.org and now I'm going to cnn with Mozilla and complaining that it's slow. Same sites, same number of windows open, different performance.
By the way, *every* OS swaps if it needs to. (unless you issue swapoff, ha, but that just makes things wose.) Run Gnome on a PII/266 with 64 MB and a slow hard drive (like my laptop) with a few apps open if you don't believe me. When I'm *using* mozilla, it runs like a champ, it's just when I leave it alone for a while that things get bad, and then it's worse than other similar apps.
OTOH, it kicks IE5/Mac's ass when it comes to rendering 1MB+ worth of HTML--6 seconds vs. 22 on an in-house test page. (That same page in Windows opens in 6 seconds in Moz, vs. <3 seconds for IE5. c'est la vie.)
I agree with the original poster. I have a PIII/733 w/ 256 MB RAM. Try this: run Moz for a while. Open up several or many tabs/windows, then leave them open and do other stuff for a while. Then, start switching between Moz and other apps and you should see the slowness. I've seen it take 15+ seconds to get back, and I've only been using it a few days. (I'm using the IE theme, if it matters... shouldn't, but might.) It's great for some things, like browsing slashdot's front page and middle-clicking to open all links in a new tab in the background. Very, very nice. But leaving it open with several windows while I write code in Homesite and make images in Photoshop? Death on a stick, and I'm using it just like I've used IE and NS for years.
:-) Everything is relative. My aunt thinks her Celica is fast. Having ridden in my friend's 13.17s/114mph Firebird, I know it isn't. :-) But she's happy with it.
Something I've learned from endless Mac-OS-X-is-slow discussions-- don't just say 'fast' or 'slow', measure!
Ha ha ha!
For fun, click that link. You'll see this:
-----
Ook! (title)
Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled.
-----
So, copy the link, then open a new window and paste. (You think you can protect your servers from the likes of us? mwa ha ha ha ha!)
I have iCal on my 10.2 Mac and Mozilla's calendar on a Win2k machine. Out of the box, they don't seem to want to read each other's .ics files. Opening them in a text editor shows they're both plain text and quite similar. Short of writing my own parser/translater in Perl or PHP, does anyone know how to get them to play well together?
In other news, http://www.apple.com/ical/library/ is a pretty sweet page. Just as a mailto: link opens your mail client with the proper info in place, they have webcal:// links that automatically open in iCal. nice.
my only problem with ical so far is the grey they use to show selected dates is sooooo close to white.
click all features, then in the top 'sort by' column, click 'free'. click a film and log in as slashdot:slashdot. (I didn't make the account, someone beat me to it.) if you want to use your own acct (or if Mr. Slashdot changes his PW) the registration is just name, email, age, gender, password, and they don't require a real address--a@a.com works just fine. :-)
Because you can't control-alt-F[1-6] and get a full-screen VT in Mac OS X, that's why.
Must be nice to live in a world where the network is never down.
You save many gigabytes of hard disk space too.
This week at compusa-80 GB HD, $80. Broadband access for 1 month: $50. You do the math.
With increasing bandwidth to the home, this is only going to get more popular.
How much bandwidth do you have going to your car? Your Rio/iPod/whatever?
Great interview, Larry, and let me be another to say "Thanks!" for Perl. My favorite line from the piece: 'Christians are fond of asking: "What would Jesus do in this situation?" Unfortunately, they very rarely come up with the correct answer, which is: "Something unexpected!"'
.sig here on slashdot-- "WWJD? JWRTFM!")
could that *be* more perfect?
(btw, I'm sure you've seen the
Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou. I can't stand people like that, and they come with every OS. I've heard it plenty from Mac people (all along telling me how infinitely superior to Windows it is, then once Mac OS X comes out, all they have to say is that 9 was an unstable bag of shit but OS X is really it) and Linux people as well, as we went from 2.0 to 2.2 to 2.4 kernels. Also cars, video game consoles, etc etc etc. I hate those people.
Also, the rest of the article was good. I'm not a fan of OS X, but we just got out Jaguar discs in today, and I'm about to head upstairs to get mine and try it out.
spam baked beans and spam
that ain't got much spam in it
but I don't like spam
Douglas Engelbart, father of just about everything 'modern' in computing, showed a chord keyboard in 1968. Do a google search for 'chord keyboard' to see how many other people are doing stuff, or 'chord keyboard douglas' to find out stuff about D.E., including RealMedia of his 1968 demo.
*cough*Mac*cough*
So, is slashdot a non-compliant site? Look at this and let me know. Seriously, I'm not baiting or trolling-- is slashdot compliant or isn't it? Because Mozilla on Mac OS 9 looks pretty crappy on most slashdot pages. The bottom three boxes are just minor font issues (still annoying on long reads) but look at the top three boxes and tell me what you think.
People are going to use free software or they aren't. The fact that they OS X has UNIX underneath (which they barely know.comprehend/care about) isn't going to compel them to do so. Furthermore, no one in Apple's target audience knows about Open Source or cares about (or could even undertand the concept of) Darwin. Just because they happen to be using OSS tools doesn't mean they know about or care about OSS in general.
Let me say this again: Joe Average user doesn't care about OSS or UNIX. How do I know? They've already shown they're happy to buy computers from closed-source vendors (Apple (OS 9 and half of X) and MS), one of whom has been found in court to be a monopoly. PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS WHEN THEY'RE BUYING COMPUTERS! They'll buy it an use it, period.
Besides, openoffice 1.0 also runs on the nine zillion (estimated) existing Windows desktops out there, much better than the OS X DR.
Final random note: I was in CompUSA and saw a couple talking to a rep about the flat-panel iMac. First question out of the customer's mouth, who apparently liked the look of the system: "Does it run XP?" That proves one of two points: 1) the customer doesn't know the difference between Apple and Intel hardware, or Apple and MS operating systems, or 2) the customer *does* know there's a difference but wants XP instead. One last time: PEOPLE a) DON'T KNOW OR b) DON'T CARE. or both.
I've used it and it's not that great, and it is less responsive on my dual-533 than Windows 95 or Linux/ICE is on a $100 P200, or 2K/XP/Linux+KDE/Gnome on a $300 PIII/500. (Or BeOS on a P120, heh.) I've run it on two Beige G3s (a 266/224MB at work and my own 300/256; value: ~$300 according to http://www.baucomcomputers.com/ ) and it is like death, only worse. If you want a windowing UI + a UNIX CLI, get Linux or Windows+cygwin.
My first computer was an Apple II+, my second was an XT. I started using windowing UIs with a Mac, followed by Windows 3 a year later. So no, I'm not some schmuck who always used Windows, then used a Mac for 10 minutes and said "It sucks!" I started on Macs and *vastly* prefer Windows. I use 2K, OS X, and OS 9 daily.
Let me end with a link to my favorite article, which I can attest is true from daily experience. Q: What does everyone buy a computer for? A: surfing. By all means, *avoid* Macs for this. And don't respond to talk about other browsers. I've done tests and overall, they're all slower than Win or Lin. But don't take my word for it: download this, change the code to make the colors proper hex triplets (just add '00' to the end of each) and check it out yourself. Open it off the HD to remove variances due to network speed.
I used to buy an average of 2-4 CDs per month. Less than 1/4 was new stuff, mostly I was just fulfilling my dream of owning every song I ever liked. So, I bought a lot of Greatest Hits discs, Best of the 80s, etc. However, even before I started downloading music, I was already beginning to slow down, not because I was anywhere close to achieving my goal, but because there was less and less good stuff to buy. I won't buy a $16 80s compilation just to get 2 good songs any more than I'll buy any *new* CD just to get 2 good songs off of it. Then Napster came along and life was great-- I got a lot of good old stuff that was either difficult, impossible, or economically unfeasable to buy. Given the opportunity, I would have *happily* paid $1 for _every_single_song_, assuming it's a)in a common format (like mp3) so I'm not tied to any one player and b) mine to do with as I wish--burn to CD, keep on a file server so I can get at it from anywhere in my house, etc. I would have _preferred_ that to going the Napster route and winding up with bitrates ranging from 64 to 320, badly encoded songs, songs that have a second or two of the previous or next track on the CD, etc etc etc. If they would make it easy for me to get the music I want in a format I want, they could hook an IV to my wallet and drain money out of me at a steady rate for the rest of my life. As long as they don't, fuck'em, I'll download whatever I want. This isn't a rationalization for what I'm doing. Stealing is wrong and that's exactly what I'm doing. But like I said-- fuck'em.
BTW, listen.com and rhapsody is pretty good, but not great. AFAICT, they don't have a way to download portable tracks. In the classical area you can download 10 burnable tracks per month, but that's retarded. 1) give them to me in a format that I can use as *I* want--I'm trying to move *away* from CDs, idiots! 2) why limit me to 10/month? Let me download portable files at $1 apiece and I'll spend at *least* $25/month, right now. Probably more like $50 a month to start, then $10-$20 a few months down the road. Hell, if I didn't spend $20 a *day* for the first week or two, I'd be surprised. Remember when Napster was good and you'd get 50-150 songs in a could hours? I'd do it again in a heartbeat, and happily pay as I went along.
And if they *really* wanted to clean up, they'd ship a copy of "The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits" to every new customer.
... you may as well go with Snort, which is free. All but the $2,500 Nokia are $12,500-$25,000. Excellent article.
it has the potential to be just as successful as PointCast, NetZero, FreePC...
One word: Macrovision.
and let us vote on the color. Pink! Blue! Purple!
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Supporters in the Linux community have maintained that open-source programs are more secure, while Microsoft's senior vice president for Windows, Jim Allchin, argued in court that opening up Windows code would undermine security.
The two things are nowhere near the same. 'Open source development' is not at all the same thing as 'closed source development, opened up later.'
People complain about posting without reading, but that's it--if it's from news.com/ZD/etc., it's wrong. :-)
Security != number of bugs. There's 'severity of bugs' and 'speed of fixes', not to mention the OS's and software's design in the first place--think permissions, user spave vs. kernel space, etc.
There are a lot of things involved. First of all, what you think is bad and what someone else thinks is bad might be two very different things. Personally, I'd rather have malformed footers than a document that needs to be majorly reflowed. (Which OO would need anyway; Office/Windows makes the document 18 pages, Office/Mac and OO makes it 21 pages.)
.doc or .xls in IE/Win and it opens right up, but there is no web-browser plug-in *at all* to let you view Office docs on a Mac (except for PowerPoint, whoopdee-$#!+), which we have 300 of in our department. How nice it would be if all of those docs were zipped XML, like OO produces--we (or someone else) could just write something to dynamically unzip->parse->convert-to-html the documents--no more trying to train people "save, then resave as HTML" every time, etc.
But, it's just one page from one document, so it obviously can't represent every possible case. Elsewhere in the document are other problems. There's a table that runs through the margin and right off the page, trimming the ends off of words, on the Mac; OO/Win handles it fine.
I made that page to get several points across. I find it funny that M$ went out of their way to make a document that can only be read on a PC. (How many other documents have you "installed"?) Also, many people make documents much more complicated than they need to be. The more light-grey footers you add to your documents, the more trouble you'll have with *any* transition. I like the plain-text/XML-ness of OO documents.
Right now, I'm building my department's Intranet site. One of the things they want to do is make easily-available a lot of constantly-updated Word docs and Excel charts. You can click on a link to a
I think two things will/should happen: 1) Home users, no longer able to steal Office from work, will start using Open Office. If your mom & dad "live in a vacuum" (that is, not a lot of document trading), get them onto OO and off of Works or that copy of Office you stole from your last job. 2) Companies of 5-25 people will probably standardize on OO, with one copy of Office in the building for translating docs that OO can't handle. (Open in MS, copy, paste into OO on the same box, save to the server.)
The plain fact is that OO will not replace M$O in the enterprise anytime soon, but I think it'll make some great strides down the road.