That sounds like Ranum only has experience with Microsoft Windows and dumb IT-People or Manager. At least #1 and #3 are not really a problem in the Unix/FLOSS world.
But that wasn't that car per se! It was a program hidden in a hidden partition of the BIOS...or at least so I remember it...well at least that time they didn't try to partition the RAM!
I think OP was more talking about the fact that there's nearly *nothing* to configure. If we look at the Gnome2-Settings-Dialogs (especially those before they were "updated") we had a ton of settings...now...well...
Offer a solid usable desktop besides of rubbish like Metro/Unity/Gnome 3. Why is this so hard. This applys to all distributions and OSs.
FTFY.
I don't care for those other DEs...but hell, don't force it on us.... And yes, I know I'm not forced towards Gnome3/Unity...but with letting Gnome2 dieing, it's not exactly a free choice either.
I still fail to understand that argument. If we can not trust computer users to choose a distribution based on a short description on the "About" section or Wikipedia (or go with the obvious choices), how can we trust those people to elect leaders for whole nations?
Believe it or not, more people use Firefox who don't read/. than who do.
Yes, of course. But what I am/we are afraid of is being left behind...again. I think we're all fine if you add new features, as long as we have the possibility to deactivate and/or configure them.
Seriously,/. in particular made such a huge deal over this, you'd have thought we were adding mandatory a porn filter.
Seeing Slashdot and it's users, a porn filter would have, most likely, lead nowhere near that reaction.;)
The same goes for the status bar, the awesomebar, tabs on top, and the version numbers.
I can't remember such an outcry with the status bar (actually, I like that change...but don't tell anyone!), the awesomebar or the tabs on top...sure, the tabs on top felt like another "Google Chrome does it" thingy, but we had the possibility to pin them back down (very very easily, which is awesome). The version number is the only change in that list which we could not opt-out from...I think Mozilla has done a too great job in giving us choice and possibilities and we got used to that, to have a choice.
Is it really the end of the world (or the beginning of the end)?
That's the question, is it? I couldn't find a *really* official statement why the version number-scheme has changed, only scarce entries with "we're doing rapid releases now". Maybe I missed something there, but it adds to my experience that I couldn't hear a *good* explanation about why, and if it is "we think that's better because it's easier for us to handle if we just have one number to increment".
Mozilla is the only web browser developer fighting for you. We're responsible to no higher goal than keeping the Web open and free.
You've beaten the hell out of IE6, you've made the Internet to what it is today, without you *shudders*...*everyone* appreciates and recognizes what you people have done. I think you can even ask the hard-core-whiners here and they'll tell you "yeah, sure, back then you did an awesome job until...". But especially the FLOSS crowd is always looking more forward then back and is a hard audience...and I think we can safely apply the "everyone who's not raising the voice is a happy user" rule.
I'm sorry that we've lost your confidence. I really am. I wish we hadn't, and I'm posting here in an effort to restore this community's confidence in us.
And I totally appreciate that, and I'm sure all others do, too. I'm sorry if I've come over a little bit...uh...frustrated and you had to take it. I am frustrated with the latest development of things (Gnome3, Ubuntu/Unity, Android)...it feels like the developers of The Good Old TimesTM have been replaced with "We need more shiny and less configurable stuff!" developers which mainly orientate themselves at MacOS and friends. We all fear that Mozilla goes down that road, too...well, don't get me wrong and please excuse dragging that dead horse out here, but the change of the version-scheme was the start for many of us. It did not seem to follow anything except "Google does it, so we must do it, too", or at least it feels that way because we/I do not understand why you can't do more frequent releases with staying with the previous version scheme. That change only seems to make sense for a certain user group...a user group everyone who's working in Support knows and wants to slam out the window. And if those "the Internet was a blue E for me, now it is a red fox" are the target audience, it is only a matter of time until the settings dialog gets trimmed down so that it is "easier" to handle.
But you and the rest of the people in this thread are not doing any good by repeating, apparently without thought, the same lines about "bloat" and "bugs" and "marketing" that have been floating around/. for years.
Yeah, that is true. But I'm happy with the performance of Firefox in every way and do not consider it bloated or buggy in any way.:)
That bug is not titled "make it impossible for people to run old versions of Firefox". I know Asa is unanimously hated here, but you can't just pull a random bug and say he's advocating for something he's not.
But it does feel like it, "you don't need to know what version you're running, because if it is old you just need to push this button to get the newest". It feels like removing control from a users point of view.
On a more serious note: What is really going on over by you? I have the feeling marketing took over Mozilla...
For example, the bug you linked was landed in Firefox over the objections of those of us in engineering. Oh, wait...
Okay, I can't understand that sentence...maybe because I'm tired or because I've been thrown around one time too much this evening...
Slashdot Mirror
If I give 2 bones to my dog and he is full he will bury them for later eating. To me that is planning ahead
Does he also remember it?
That sounds like Ranum only has experience with Microsoft Windows and dumb IT-People or Manager. At least #1 and #3 are not really a problem in the Unix/FLOSS world.
That makes much more sense, thanks.
Can you give us a car-analogy for that?
But that wasn't that car per se! It was a program hidden in a hidden partition of the BIOS...or at least so I remember it...well at least that time they didn't try to partition the RAM!
I think OP was more talking about the fact that there's nearly *nothing* to configure. If we look at the Gnome2-Settings-Dialogs (especially those before they were "updated") we had a ton of settings...now...well...
I fear it's either you guys killing some other guys...or the other guys killing everyone else.
Can somebody please assist me here: Sun is too close to Hubble, but Moon is fine?
Ahm, no? You could turn off Metro in DP, but not in CP...except if you know a way, that would be cool if you'd share it with us.
What window-control-debacle?
Offer a solid usable desktop besides of rubbish like Metro/Unity/Gnome 3. Why is this so hard. This applys to all distributions and OSs.
FTFY.
I don't care for those other DEs...but hell, don't force it on us. ... And yes, I know I'm not forced towards Gnome3/Unity...but with letting Gnome2 dieing, it's not exactly a free choice either.
I still fail to understand that argument. If we can not trust computer users to choose a distribution based on a short description on the "About" section or Wikipedia (or go with the obvious choices), how can we trust those people to elect leaders for whole nations?
...since the JVM has less performance-relevant functionality than the CLR (e.g., generics, arrays, pointers, etc.).
Did I get this right? You say JVM doesn't have arrays? ... I'm sure I misunderstood you, so care to explain what exactly you mean?
C# is a far superior language...
I don't care for the language, it's the framework that sucks in my opinion. And the IDE, too...well, maybe I just had a bad start with that one.
MIT has monitored bathrooms, does that count?
And to troll a little bit, what happens to my coffeepot if it dies with a bluescreen?
So, basically those are Patent-Landmines, easily usable for Trolls? Slogan: "They'll not know what him 'em!"
It would for sure create more jobs...or at least free some.
The easy road would be to make being a Organ-Donor opt-out, not opt-in.
Believe it or not, more people use Firefox who don't read /. than who do.
Yes, of course. But what I am/we are afraid of is being left behind...again. I think we're all fine if you add new features, as long as we have the possibility to deactivate and/or configure them.
Seriously, /. in particular made such a huge deal over this, you'd have thought we were adding mandatory a porn filter.
Seeing Slashdot and it's users, a porn filter would have, most likely, lead nowhere near that reaction. ;)
The same goes for the status bar, the awesomebar, tabs on top, and the version numbers.
I can't remember such an outcry with the status bar (actually, I like that change...but don't tell anyone!), the awesomebar or the tabs on top...sure, the tabs on top felt like another "Google Chrome does it" thingy, but we had the possibility to pin them back down (very very easily, which is awesome). The version number is the only change in that list which we could not opt-out from...I think Mozilla has done a too great job in giving us choice and possibilities and we got used to that, to have a choice.
Is it really the end of the world (or the beginning of the end)?
That's the question, is it? I couldn't find a *really* official statement why the version number-scheme has changed, only scarce entries with "we're doing rapid releases now". Maybe I missed something there, but it adds to my experience that I couldn't hear a *good* explanation about why, and if it is "we think that's better because it's easier for us to handle if we just have one number to increment".
Mozilla is the only web browser developer fighting for you. We're responsible to no higher goal than keeping the Web open and free.
You've beaten the hell out of IE6, you've made the Internet to what it is today, without you *shudders*...*everyone* appreciates and recognizes what you people have done. I think you can even ask the hard-core-whiners here and they'll tell you "yeah, sure, back then you did an awesome job until...". But especially the FLOSS crowd is always looking more forward then back and is a hard audience...and I think we can safely apply the "everyone who's not raising the voice is a happy user" rule.
The ruling was that banks do not pay for losses from phishing and can not be held reliable for stupid customers.
Well, the U.S. is not the only ones with stupid people, we (Austrians, and Germans too) have got some seriously dumb people, too.
I'm sorry that we've lost your confidence. I really am. I wish we hadn't, and I'm posting here in an effort to restore this community's confidence in us.
And I totally appreciate that, and I'm sure all others do, too. I'm sorry if I've come over a little bit...uh...frustrated and you had to take it. I am frustrated with the latest development of things (Gnome3, Ubuntu/Unity, Android)...it feels like the developers of The Good Old TimesTM have been replaced with "We need more shiny and less configurable stuff!" developers which mainly orientate themselves at MacOS and friends. We all fear that Mozilla goes down that road, too...well, don't get me wrong and please excuse dragging that dead horse out here, but the change of the version-scheme was the start for many of us. It did not seem to follow anything except "Google does it, so we must do it, too", or at least it feels that way because we/I do not understand why you can't do more frequent releases with staying with the previous version scheme. That change only seems to make sense for a certain user group...a user group everyone who's working in Support knows and wants to slam out the window. And if those "the Internet was a blue E for me, now it is a red fox" are the target audience, it is only a matter of time until the settings dialog gets trimmed down so that it is "easier" to handle.
But you and the rest of the people in this thread are not doing any good by repeating, apparently without thought, the same lines about "bloat" and "bugs" and "marketing" that have been floating around /. for years.
Yeah, that is true. But I'm happy with the performance of Firefox in every way and do not consider it bloated or buggy in any way. :)
Every Little thing!
That bug is not titled "make it impossible for people to run old versions of Firefox". I know Asa is unanimously hated here, but you can't just pull a random bug and say he's advocating for something he's not.
But it does feel like it, "you don't need to know what version you're running, because if it is old you just need to push this button to get the newest". It feels like removing control from a users point of view.
For example, the bug you linked was landed in Firefox over the objections of those of us in engineering. Oh, wait...
Okay, I can't understand that sentence...maybe because I'm tired or because I've been thrown around one time too much this evening...
Emerald is, as far as I know, only a window-border stuffy thingy for compiz...