I'm more-or-less with you, but.. Netscape 4. Ugh. IIRC, version 3 hit the sweet spot regarding performance, footprint, and all the rest.. A bit like Win2K.
Tabs are just another form of MDI, and as such really chuck the whole document-centric computing idea out the window.
In reality, of course, they're pretty useful, but if someone could find a way of having another go at document-centricity while keeping the tabs, that would be nice. In theory the Win9x-style taskbar isn't much different from tabs, but in reality it doesn't seem to work nearly as well, regardless of all the bells and whistles MS seem to keep adding to it..
When HTML (and thus, rendering engines) were simpler, starting multiple copies of the browser was probably a perfectly reasonable approach, as any duplicated data wouldn't be that big. In the modern era, I agree, it has to be done more intelligently.
Hmm.. I've been using Firefox since 1.0, and I don't recall ever having a crash. Admittedly I'm getting old and my memory is going, but I'm more certain that I haven't seen one in recent history (2.0 upwards.)
And yes, I do use flash. Not heavily, it has to be said, but often enough.
The speed improvements in 3.5 were, IMNSHO, a higher priority than this multiprocess stuff..
It is also possible to do non-blocking or async I/O, of course. A pain in the arse in many situations, but some applications are a good fit for a single process / thread model. Given the amount of state involved in modern web browsers, though, they're probably not one of them.
There always seems to be an arms race. I hate to say it, but for years, Windows offered a superior desktop experience for normal users, and that fact incited the OSS world to catch up, and arguably overtake. Similarly, Firefox leap-frogged IE quite drastically, causing MS to play catch-up, which they may just about have managed (not sure here, I gave up web design long ago, and don't have IE 8 anywhere to play with.)
In this picture, OSS doesn't always have the lead on features, but what I'm trying to point out is that there are other qualities where OSS does (IMNSHO) consistently trump commercial software, but these are difficult to identify, describe, and communicate to end-users. Should we continue to over-simplify and just tell people "OSS is better", or should we have a go at explaining, in more detail, exactly why?
(The word "consumer" has always squicked me, I have to say.. what was wrong with "customer"? "Consumer" conjures up visions of something hippo-like lying on a sofa, watching daytime TV and ingesting liquidized burgers through a tube.. whereas a customer is somebody who exercises their own judgement and returns to vendors whom they have previous good experiences with.)
Commercial software always seems to pander to user's short-term needs.. "You want to do XYZ? Here, we'll automate it for you, make it happen at the click of a button." Whereas OSS is aware of future consequences, security, the risks to architectural integrity posed by feature creep, and that one size doesn't fit all. Stuff that used to be known under that now sadly under-used word "craftsmanship."
From an amateur sysadmin's PoV, I'd have to say "yes, looks like it." I trust dpkg. I know when I install something that dpkg WILL NOT proceed if that package overwrites files in another package. Years of experience of (admittedly earlier versions of) Windows have made me really appreciate that. Plus all the little elaborations like dpkg-divert, and the alternatives system, that allow people who understand their system to tweak things without tripping up the package manager later.
Having a user-friendly installer that runs everywhere is superficially nice, but I like the trust that comes from understanding the underlying architecture. And anyway, you could implement something like that on-top of dpkg/apt if necessary - simply detecting the distro version and adding an appropriate line to/etc/apt/sources.lists would have the same effect as far as user was concerned.
Actually being able to install the same.exe on multiple OS versions is a double-edged sword. You either have to statically link things like the C run-time library, upgrade the system-wide version (historically dangerous and avoided on Windows), or supply the app with a local copy - which means it won't get updated by security fixes released by the OS vendor.
Superficially easily installation is trumped in my book my a system which does the Right Thing and which has earned the trust I place in it..
At the risk of being slightly controversial.. how much of the difference between commercial and OSS really is technical?
Don't get me wrong, I'm rabidly pro-F/L/OSS, and nudge "ordinary" people towards it wherever I can, but I think it's a bit of a simplification to describe it as purely technically superior. When it does push the envelope, it normally drives the commercial world to react and improve, so they're usually roughly level-pegging at the feature level.
Where it really shines, I think, is in harder-to-define areas. Ethics, for one. Architectural taste, for another (debian got package management right 10 - 15 years ago - has windows caught up yet?) Social/organizational factors - the maintenance and repository models used by open OS distributions works so well that the commercial world is mimicking it with "app stores." Lastly, of course, there's motivation - I trust Ubuntu and Mozilla to fix security holes because it's the Right Thing and because they want to do a good job, and not just because they're scared of getting caught out, which I always feel is the mindset in the commercial world.
I understand these things are probably harder to explain to the general public, but can we at least be a bit more honest / precise amongst ourselves?
If IE and Firefox were both using Sun's JVM (which I imagine they were), perhaps it was the JVM's security settings that got changed? That's my best guess for that one.
Because IE is almost always shipped with Windows, other apps often use its rendering engine to display HTML - they might be also be vulnerable if they use it to display untrusted content. The advisory mentioned the Outlook Express isn't vulnerable in its default configuration because of its use of IE's "zones" feature, but that does rather imply that it, and other apps, might be vulnerable in certain circumstances.
Usually, anything that uses IE's rendering engine to display untrusted content is also vulnerable. MS's advisory mentions that Outlook Express isn't vulnerable by default in this situation because of the it's use of the zoning stuff, which implies that it, and other apps, might be vulnerable otherwise.
I'm pretty sure MS's workaround here only prevents that one ActiveX control being instantiated.
Arguably, the Netscape / Mozilla plug-in API is just as vulnerable, though at least there the user has to do something to install it. It briefly looked like MS were going to be forced to do the same thing due to a patent issue, but sadly that didn't happen:
My issue is about effective use of limited resources. Slow road users + narrow roads + fast road users = hold ups.
Horse-drawn carriages are, as far as I'm aware, still legal on UK roads, and I'm sure they're great fun to ride in. Are you telling me you'd feel no frustration if you met half-a-dozen of them during your commute to work? As a driver it's hard to argue this without looking prejudiced, but my primary issue really is "turbulence" in the traffic flow, and I'd like to think it still would be if I rode instead.
If I'm doing 75 in the fast lane of the motorway, the traffic in the slower lane next to me is doing 70, and someone behind me wants to do 80+, I move over when its safe and let them. It reduces frustration and increases the throughput of the road.
(Incidentally, people cycling considerately and / or making necessary journeys really don't bother me. I suspect possibly I'm particularly unlucky with who I encounter on my local roads..)
Pay by mile would also suit me - probably reduce my tax, actually, at least if implemented as revenue-neutral.
If I can take on more hours at my place of work, I'll be eligible to live on-site, assuming there are any residences available. Driving is getting aggravating enough (and petrol expensive enough) that I'm seriously considering doing that - a bus trip *out* of the village once a week to go shopping would be much more plausible than than trying to get in and out every day.
I *am* trying to reduce my footprint, but practicality is still a huge obstacle. And more to the point, I'm plagued by a continual nagging doubt that *all* our efforts are going to be overtaken by events anyway - and not necessarily the good kind.
Not sure about the conversion of rail corridors to cycle paths - at least this way the land is getting used, and if the line turns out to be needed in the future, I can't imagine the cost of laying the rail is the biggest part of the outlay in building rail routes.
I think a large part of cyclist elitism might stem from a mentality which is still in "treadmill" mode.
Aha. That crystallizes an idea I was groping towards but couldn't verbalize. Yes. It explains why country cyclists bother me more than town cyclists, too, I think. There's a bloody great hill just outside of where I work - I have no idea how anybody manages to cycle up it at all, but I do know that nobody does it very fast. It's a very twisty road, very few places where it's safe to overtake, and to be fair there aren't that many places a cyclist could safely pull over either -- but nobody uses the ones that *do* exist. Also, IIRC, there's a footpath that runs parallel (albeit a fair distance away) to that road, which could be turned into a cycle route if some money was thrown at it.
It's easy enough to have one's judgement swamped by testosterone while driving, I guess it's even easier when cycling.
As long as the roads are to be used by everyone with equal right of access, including bikers, you're going to have to gain some patience.
I'll remember that next time I'm in town and see the cyclists weaving dangerously through the slow moving (but not stationary) traffic, jumping red lights, and going the wrong way up one-way streets.
Mind you, my most recent horrifying experience was a roller-blader, in the cycle lane, going *against* the flow of the traffic, with headphones in.. *and* texting. I saw her again a few hours later this time on the pavement (sidewalk), so obviously natural selection didn't take its course that time.
(FWIW, I live in the UK. Dunno how many of your assumptions apply.)
Anyway, I go to town once a week (and park as far out of town as I can, which isn't very), the supermarket once a week, the rest of my driving is to and from work. If the bus journey to work didn't take four times as long, cost about eight times as much, and actually run at the hours I need to use it, I'd use it - the traffic is bad enough around here that driving stopped being fun years ago. My car's 10 years old, low fuel consumption, meets all the emissions standards. I'd happily see my road tax double, I'd happily have a gadget that would allow me to pay by the mile. How much congestion and pollution am I causing, exactly?
In towns the speed differentials are lower, and congestion's already a problem, not much need for totally independent cycle routes. Cross-country cycle routes *can* be built, because they have been - in the tourist parts of the UK - but nobody seems to give a toss in the areas where most people actually live and work.
The thing that really bugs me is the idea that other people's recreational activities trump my need to get to work and earn my living.
For small numbers of cars, or in towns or other low speed limit areas, certainly not. I do think, though, that there's an argument to be made that on derestricted, major country roads a convoy of cyclists is as much of an obstruction as a tractor or similar vehicle, and I think the highway code over here suggests, even if it doesn't mandate, that the civilized thing to do if you're a tractor with a huge queue behind you is to find a safe place to pull over.
The real answer of course is more decent cross-country dedicated cycle routes.
Some motorists do have what I see as too great a sense of entitlement, particularly in towns where there are lots of non-motorized road users, and usually reasonable alternatives to cars. Out of town though, I think we're entitled to a reasonably efficient flow of traffic -- particularly as in the UK, there is often little room for road widening, bypass-building, etc., etc.
Some nice ideas in that presentation, though it's difficult to interpret some of it in terms in UK road designs. Looking at the road markings seems to imply that cyclists on sidepaths have priority when crossing side roads? Eek. Bringing them closer to the road is definitely a win.
Shared space / home zone-type ideas are appropriate in some residential areas too - it's unnerving as a driver to start with, but negotiating (eye-contact, etc.) with other road users in these sort of spaces is fairer, and strangely, apparently, safer (I guess it takes away the "Nuremberg defence" for drivers who just follow the road markings without paying attention.)
I guess we all get bees in our bonnets over this stuff. To be fair, AFAICT it's not normally commuting cyclists that wind me up - they tend to be pretty alert. Most town cyclists seem to pay attention, even if they bend the road rules and weave in and out more than I'd prefer (I would like a dash-mounted video camera with a 60 second buffer though - I'd hate to have to defend myself in the event of an accident without it, it's amazing how quickly witnesses disappear when something like happens.)
It's the convoy-forming recreational weekenders around here that bug me - I'm sure it's great to take the whole family out for a ride and enjoy the fresh air and the scenery, but the queue of drivers behind you probably have places to get.
As for lane hogging - if you need it for safety, go for it. Believe it or not, I actually prefer this - as a driver who isn't going to overtake you until I'm damn sure it's safe, I prefer it if the cars behind me can see that you've given me no choice.
Oh, sure. I have cycled on some of the roads around here on occasion and the quality of the surface away from the centre is (even more) horrendous.
What bugs me is the reasonably high proportion of cyclists who, judging by their demeanor, body language and behaviour, seem to be in a little world of their own, unaware that they inconvenience other road users as much as those other users inconvenience them. If I felt they were trying as hard to treat me with courtesy as I was them, I wouldn't get riled by it.
As I've said, our current transport infrastructure sucks. Doesn't mean those of us who don't have the opportunity to ditch the car aren't equal sufferers. I'd much rather doze on a train or bus, or get some exercise and save myself some petrol on a bike, than fight my way through the traffic twice a day.. but it's just not an option for me.
You see, this is an example of the apparently unassailable moral high ground that cyclists (seem to believe they) occupy.
If there's no room to overtake, I don't overtake. As I said, I don't like killing people.
Cars overtake in smooth curves. The further out I have to move, the longer it takes me to get back in. Increased risk and fewer opportunities.
On wide-ish roads, there is often room from a car each way *and* a cyclist. Less often is there room for a car each way and multiple cyclists.
Tractors are usually driven by farmers who produce food, arguably a useful job. They have sometimes also been known to pull over to let cars past.
As I said, I accept the environmental, health and cost saving benefits of cycling, but in the current world, not everybody can use them for every journey. Let's please vote for more cycle paths, and while we're waiting, can cyclists please understand that drivers are not (all) the minions of the antichrist?
[Incidentally, I'm not picking on cyclists. The behaviour of pedestrians on the outskirts of my town is increasingly dubious, too (in the centre I feel they're more entitled to take right of way - there's no particular reason it should be clogged up with cars, after all.) When I was a kid, it was drummed in to me that I had a certain responsibility for my own safety when interacting with traffic. What the hell happened to that?]
To use shared folders in a Linux guest, you also have to type a mount command directly:-)
I have to say, though, NetworkManager is growing on me. 90% of the time it just works, and on the odd occasion you need to drop back to using/etc/network/interfaces, it just gets out of the way.
I've come to the conclusion over the years that, in fact, desktops are not ready for the desktop. Bring back dumb terminals (or centrally managed smart ones.) Failing that, computers-as-appliances. Most people don't care enough to responsibly use the power that full-featured systems give them, and I've given up believing I can change that.
Though on second thought, as a cyclist, I'm not sure a deathly laser assault on drivers is completely unwarranted.
As a driver, I often have the reverse thought. I work weekends, and what is a nice ride out of the suburbs for lots of cyclists is my commute. What is it with convoys of cyclists? Either two (or more) abreast, stretching the overtaking distance substantially or preventing it completely, or in indian file leaving no gaps for cars to pull into, meaning you either have to try and overtake anywhere from 2 to 6 bikes at once, or not at all.
I'm a realist. I know we're going to have to throttle back on car use a lot in the future. I'm quite happy to pay more road tax to fund better public transport, and if it was better I would use it. Perhaps we can build more off-road cycle lanes too? Bikes and cars just don't mix - the size, vulnerability, and speed differentials are just too great.
In the meantime I wish cyclists would realise that some people still have to drive to make a living. We're not arseholes, most of us have good spatial awareness and don't really fancy the idea of killing anyone. Any chance of some consideration going in the other direction?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm more-or-less with you, but .. Netscape 4. Ugh. IIRC, version 3 hit the sweet spot regarding performance, footprint, and all the rest .. A bit like Win2K.
Tabs are just another form of MDI, and as such really chuck the whole document-centric computing idea out the window.
In reality, of course, they're pretty useful, but if someone could find a way of having another go at document-centricity while keeping the tabs, that would be nice. In theory the Win9x-style taskbar isn't much different from tabs, but in reality it doesn't seem to work nearly as well, regardless of all the bells and whistles MS seem to keep adding to it..
When HTML (and thus, rendering engines) were simpler, starting multiple copies of the browser was probably a perfectly reasonable approach, as any duplicated data wouldn't be that big. In the modern era, I agree, it has to be done more intelligently.
Hmm.. I've been using Firefox since 1.0, and I don't recall ever having a crash. Admittedly I'm getting old and my memory is going, but I'm more certain that I haven't seen one in recent history (2.0 upwards.) And yes, I do use flash. Not heavily, it has to be said, but often enough. The speed improvements in 3.5 were, IMNSHO, a higher priority than this multiprocess stuff ..
It is also possible to do non-blocking or async I/O, of course. A pain in the arse in many situations, but some applications are a good fit for a single process / thread model. Given the amount of state involved in modern web browsers, though, they're probably not one of them.
There always seems to be an arms race. I hate to say it, but for years, Windows offered a superior desktop experience for normal users, and that fact incited the OSS world to catch up, and arguably overtake. Similarly, Firefox leap-frogged IE quite drastically, causing MS to play catch-up, which they may just about have managed (not sure here, I gave up web design long ago, and don't have IE 8 anywhere to play with.)
In this picture, OSS doesn't always have the lead on features, but what I'm trying to point out is that there are other qualities where OSS does (IMNSHO) consistently trump commercial software, but these are difficult to identify, describe, and communicate to end-users. Should we continue to over-simplify and just tell people "OSS is better", or should we have a go at explaining, in more detail, exactly why?
(The word "consumer" has always squicked me, I have to say .. what was wrong with "customer"? "Consumer" conjures up visions of something hippo-like lying on a sofa, watching daytime TV and ingesting liquidized burgers through a tube .. whereas a customer is somebody who exercises their own judgement and returns to vendors whom they have previous good experiences with.)
.. "You want to do XYZ? Here, we'll automate it for you, make it happen at the click of a button." Whereas OSS is aware of future consequences, security, the risks to architectural integrity posed by feature creep, and that one size doesn't fit all. Stuff that used to be known under that now sadly under-used word "craftsmanship."
Commercial software always seems to pander to user's short-term needs
From an amateur sysadmin's PoV, I'd have to say "yes, looks like it." I trust dpkg. I know when I install something that dpkg WILL NOT proceed if that package overwrites files in another package. Years of experience of (admittedly earlier versions of) Windows have made me really appreciate that. Plus all the little elaborations like dpkg-divert, and the alternatives system, that allow people who understand their system to tweak things without tripping up the package manager later.
/etc/apt/sources.lists would have the same effect as far as user was concerned.
.exe on multiple OS versions is a double-edged sword. You either have to statically link things like the C run-time library, upgrade the system-wide version (historically dangerous and avoided on Windows), or supply the app with a local copy - which means it won't get updated by security fixes released by the OS vendor.
..
Having a user-friendly installer that runs everywhere is superficially nice, but I like the trust that comes from understanding the underlying architecture. And anyway, you could implement something like that on-top of dpkg/apt if necessary - simply detecting the distro version and adding an appropriate line to
Actually being able to install the same
Superficially easily installation is trumped in my book my a system which does the Right Thing and which has earned the trust I place in it
At the risk of being slightly controversial .. how much of the difference between commercial and OSS really is technical?
Don't get me wrong, I'm rabidly pro-F/L/OSS, and nudge "ordinary" people towards it wherever I can, but I think it's a bit of a simplification to describe it as purely technically superior. When it does push the envelope, it normally drives the commercial world to react and improve, so they're usually roughly level-pegging at the feature level.
Where it really shines, I think, is in harder-to-define areas. Ethics, for one. Architectural taste, for another (debian got package management right 10 - 15 years ago - has windows caught up yet?) Social/organizational factors - the maintenance and repository models used by open OS distributions works so well that the commercial world is mimicking it with "app stores." Lastly, of course, there's motivation - I trust Ubuntu and Mozilla to fix security holes because it's the Right Thing and because they want to do a good job, and not just because they're scared of getting caught out, which I always feel is the mindset in the commercial world.
I understand these things are probably harder to explain to the general public, but can we at least be a bit more honest / precise amongst ourselves?
If IE and Firefox were both using Sun's JVM (which I imagine they were), perhaps it was the JVM's security settings that got changed? That's my best guess for that one.
Because IE is almost always shipped with Windows, other apps often use its rendering engine to display HTML - they might be also be vulnerable if they use it to display untrusted content. The advisory mentioned the Outlook Express isn't vulnerable in its default configuration because of its use of IE's "zones" feature, but that does rather imply that it, and other apps, might be vulnerable in certain circumstances.
Usually, anything that uses IE's rendering engine to display untrusted content is also vulnerable. MS's advisory mentions that Outlook Express isn't vulnerable by default in this situation because of the it's use of the zoning stuff, which implies that it, and other apps, might be vulnerable otherwise.
I'm pretty sure MS's workaround here only prevents that one ActiveX control being instantiated.
Arguably, the Netscape / Mozilla plug-in API is just as vulnerable, though at least there the user has to do something to install it. It briefly looked like MS were going to be forced to do the same thing due to a patent issue, but sadly that didn't happen:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/11/08/ie-automatic-component-activation-changes-to-ie-activex-update.aspx
AFAIK, the meaning of "box" in that expression is much more general, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_outside_the_box
My issue is about effective use of limited resources. Slow road users + narrow roads + fast road users = hold ups.
Horse-drawn carriages are, as far as I'm aware, still legal on UK roads, and I'm sure they're great fun to ride in. Are you telling me you'd feel no frustration if you met half-a-dozen of them during your commute to work? As a driver it's hard to argue this without looking prejudiced, but my primary issue really is "turbulence" in the traffic flow, and I'd like to think it still would be if I rode instead.
If I'm doing 75 in the fast lane of the motorway, the traffic in the slower lane next to me is doing 70, and someone behind me wants to do 80+, I move over when its safe and let them. It reduces frustration and increases the throughput of the road.
(Incidentally, people cycling considerately and / or making necessary journeys really don't bother me. I suspect possibly I'm particularly unlucky with who I encounter on my local roads..)
Pay by mile would also suit me - probably reduce my tax, actually, at least if implemented as revenue-neutral.
If I can take on more hours at my place of work, I'll be eligible to live on-site, assuming there are any residences available. Driving is getting aggravating enough (and petrol expensive enough) that I'm seriously considering doing that - a bus trip *out* of the village once a week to go shopping would be much more plausible than than trying to get in and out every day.
I *am* trying to reduce my footprint, but practicality is still a huge obstacle. And more to the point, I'm plagued by a continual nagging doubt that *all* our efforts are going to be overtaken by events anyway - and not necessarily the good kind.
Not sure about the conversion of rail corridors to cycle paths - at least this way the land is getting used, and if the line turns out to be needed in the future, I can't imagine the cost of laying the rail is the biggest part of the outlay in building rail routes.
I think a large part of cyclist elitism might stem from a mentality which is still in "treadmill" mode.
Aha. That crystallizes an idea I was groping towards but couldn't verbalize. Yes. It explains why country cyclists bother me more than town cyclists, too, I think. There's a bloody great hill just outside of where I work - I have no idea how anybody manages to cycle up it at all, but I do know that nobody does it very fast. It's a very twisty road, very few places where it's safe to overtake, and to be fair there aren't that many places a cyclist could safely pull over either -- but nobody uses the ones that *do* exist. Also, IIRC, there's a footpath that runs parallel (albeit a fair distance away) to that road, which could be turned into a cycle route if some money was thrown at it.
It's easy enough to have one's judgement swamped by testosterone while driving, I guess it's even easier when cycling.
As long as the roads are to be used by everyone with equal right of access, including bikers, you're going to have to gain some patience.
I'll remember that next time I'm in town and see the cyclists weaving dangerously through the slow moving (but not stationary) traffic, jumping red lights, and going the wrong way up one-way streets.
Mind you, my most recent horrifying experience was a roller-blader, in the cycle lane, going *against* the flow of the traffic, with headphones in .. *and* texting. I saw her again a few hours later this time on the pavement (sidewalk), so obviously natural selection didn't take its course that time.
(FWIW, I live in the UK. Dunno how many of your assumptions apply.)
Anyway, I go to town once a week (and park as far out of town as I can, which isn't very), the supermarket once a week, the rest of my driving is to and from work. If the bus journey to work didn't take four times as long, cost about eight times as much, and actually run at the hours I need to use it, I'd use it - the traffic is bad enough around here that driving stopped being fun years ago. My car's 10 years old, low fuel consumption, meets all the emissions standards. I'd happily see my road tax double, I'd happily have a gadget that would allow me to pay by the mile. How much congestion and pollution am I causing, exactly?
In towns the speed differentials are lower, and congestion's already a problem, not much need for totally independent cycle routes. Cross-country cycle routes *can* be built, because they have been - in the tourist parts of the UK - but nobody seems to give a toss in the areas where most people actually live and work.
The thing that really bugs me is the idea that other people's recreational activities trump my need to get to work and earn my living.
For small numbers of cars, or in towns or other low speed limit areas, certainly not. I do think, though, that there's an argument to be made that on derestricted, major country roads a convoy of cyclists is as much of an obstruction as a tractor or similar vehicle, and I think the highway code over here suggests, even if it doesn't mandate, that the civilized thing to do if you're a tractor with a huge queue behind you is to find a safe place to pull over.
The real answer of course is more decent cross-country dedicated cycle routes.
Some motorists do have what I see as too great a sense of entitlement, particularly in towns where there are lots of non-motorized road users, and usually reasonable alternatives to cars. Out of town though, I think we're entitled to a reasonably efficient flow of traffic -- particularly as in the UK, there is often little room for road widening, bypass-building, etc., etc.
Next time you're in Kent, UK I will :-)
Some nice ideas in that presentation, though it's difficult to interpret some of it in terms in UK road designs. Looking at the road markings seems to imply that cyclists on sidepaths have priority when crossing side roads? Eek. Bringing them closer to the road is definitely a win.
Shared space / home zone-type ideas are appropriate in some residential areas too - it's unnerving as a driver to start with, but negotiating (eye-contact, etc.) with other road users in these sort of spaces is fairer, and strangely, apparently, safer (I guess it takes away the "Nuremberg defence" for drivers who just follow the road markings without paying attention.)
I guess we all get bees in our bonnets over this stuff. To be fair, AFAICT it's not normally commuting cyclists that wind me up - they tend to be pretty alert. Most town cyclists seem to pay attention, even if they bend the road rules and weave in and out more than I'd prefer (I would like a dash-mounted video camera with a 60 second buffer though - I'd hate to have to defend myself in the event of an accident without it, it's amazing how quickly witnesses disappear when something like happens.)
It's the convoy-forming recreational weekenders around here that bug me - I'm sure it's great to take the whole family out for a ride and enjoy the fresh air and the scenery, but the queue of drivers behind you probably have places to get.
As for lane hogging - if you need it for safety, go for it. Believe it or not, I actually prefer this - as a driver who isn't going to overtake you until I'm damn sure it's safe, I prefer it if the cars behind me can see that you've given me no choice.
Oh, sure. I have cycled on some of the roads around here on occasion and the quality of the surface away from the centre is (even more) horrendous.
.. but it's just not an option for me.
What bugs me is the reasonably high proportion of cyclists who, judging by their demeanor, body language and behaviour, seem to be in a little world of their own, unaware that they inconvenience other road users as much as those other users inconvenience them. If I felt they were trying as hard to treat me with courtesy as I was them, I wouldn't get riled by it.
As I've said, our current transport infrastructure sucks. Doesn't mean those of us who don't have the opportunity to ditch the car aren't equal sufferers. I'd much rather doze on a train or bus, or get some exercise and save myself some petrol on a bike, than fight my way through the traffic twice a day
You see, this is an example of the apparently unassailable moral high ground that cyclists (seem to believe they) occupy.
If there's no room to overtake, I don't overtake. As I said, I don't like killing people.
Cars overtake in smooth curves. The further out I have to move, the longer it takes me to get back in. Increased risk and fewer opportunities.
On wide-ish roads, there is often room from a car each way *and* a cyclist. Less often is there room for a car each way and multiple cyclists.
Tractors are usually driven by farmers who produce food, arguably a useful job. They have sometimes also been known to pull over to let cars past.
As I said, I accept the environmental, health and cost saving benefits of cycling, but in the current world, not everybody can use them for every journey. Let's please vote for more cycle paths, and while we're waiting, can cyclists please understand that drivers are not (all) the minions of the antichrist?
[Incidentally, I'm not picking on cyclists. The behaviour of pedestrians on the outskirts of my town is increasingly dubious, too (in the centre I feel they're more entitled to take right of way - there's no particular reason it should be clogged up with cars, after all.) When I was a kid, it was drummed in to me that I had a certain responsibility for my own safety when interacting with traffic. What the hell happened to that?]
To use shared folders in a Linux guest, you also have to type a mount command directly :-)
/etc/network/interfaces, it just gets out of the way.
I have to say, though, NetworkManager is growing on me. 90% of the time it just works, and on the odd occasion you need to drop back to using
I've come to the conclusion over the years that, in fact, desktops are not ready for the desktop. Bring back dumb terminals (or centrally managed smart ones.) Failing that, computers-as-appliances. Most people don't care enough to responsibly use the power that full-featured systems give them, and I've given up believing I can change that.
That should be "\\vboxsvr\". The slashdot comment handling code is another mysterious oddity in my book.
Though on second thought, as a cyclist, I'm not sure a deathly laser assault on drivers is completely unwarranted.
As a driver, I often have the reverse thought. I work weekends, and what is a nice ride out of the suburbs for lots of cyclists is my commute. What is it with convoys of cyclists? Either two (or more) abreast, stretching the overtaking distance substantially or preventing it completely, or in indian file leaving no gaps for cars to pull into, meaning you either have to try and overtake anywhere from 2 to 6 bikes at once, or not at all.
I'm a realist. I know we're going to have to throttle back on car use a lot in the future. I'm quite happy to pay more road tax to fund better public transport, and if it was better I would use it. Perhaps we can build more off-road cycle lanes too? Bikes and cars just don't mix - the size, vulnerability, and speed differentials are just too great.
In the meantime I wish cyclists would realise that some people still have to drive to make a living. We're not arseholes, most of us have good spatial awareness and don't really fancy the idea of killing anyone. Any chance of some consideration going in the other direction?
Rant over.