I noticed the exact same thing recently with a client site, whose specifications included a Flash animation, and a DHTML menu that would go over the Flash piece. To make it work, I had to enable background transparency (or some such thing) in the Flash animation, then give the menu a higher Z-index than the Flash. Worked fine with Firefox.8 on Windoze, but Moz 1.6 on Linux always rendered the Flash in the foreground. Not sure if that was using the new Flash plugin, though.
Does Ctrl+N create a new window that is a duplicate/clone of the current window?
Is that the behavior you desire? If so, I must admit my confusion as to why you'd want two browser windows with the same page loaded at the same time. And if your purpose is to follow links from a page while keeping the page itself around, opening links in tabs to perform that function is %1000 more efficient than opening new windows (and reloading the original page into the new window each time).
At $30/mo for low-traffic sites, I think the price is way too high. IMO, it would be more reasonable to charge $5/mo for low traffic, and maybe $30/mo for a high traffic site. Neat idea, though.
# Possible Backdoors/No Auditability
This is true of any downloaded program. Unless oneself spends their own time looking through the source for every piece of software you use, you may never know if there is. You cannot trust others, as they may have been the ones that put it there.
Actually it's only true of any closed source program. Even though you personally may not have the time or inclination to audit source code, it is a very real and tangible benefit for many people, organizations, governments, etc.
# General Flakeyness/BSOD
This is a pretty big myth since the sale of Windows 2000 started. Windows XP is very stable and can be run for months and months without reboot as long as you don't run flaky software on it. It will also not degrade if you do not install flaky software. Instances of these are Gator and Cydoor.
Windows stability has improved, I'll grant you that. But it's still not as good as it could be, evidenced be your 'flaky software' copout. User space software should not be able to crash a modern OS. Also since I forgot to mention Windows security problems, I guess that would also fall under this heading.
# Consumer Mentality
This doesn't really have anything to do with the OS itself, it merely shows that you are trying to divert attention. The elitist nature of many OSS developers is much worse than what I've seen from Windows people.
Wow, you read a lot into that statement. Basically, I don't like the way MS tends to dumb-down their software. ("Are you sure you want to delete this file?" That's why I bloody clicked delete, now isn't it?!)
# Forced Upgrades
# Forced requires that something is making you do the upgrades, that you cannot keep with what you have. To my knowledge, no one is stopping you from installing Windows 3.1 and using it. It's just that you probably don't want to.
OK, nobody is holding a gun to your head to upgrade. But if you want to open that Excel sheet Joe in marketing sent you, and he's got Excel 2005 and you only have Excel 2000, well it's time to upgrade, eh?
# Poor Documentation
Most *nix people tell you to Google or RTFM, if you Google for Windows you find info as well. If you click on Help, there's actually stuff there too. It's in a much nicer format than man pages, and you can search it very easily.
Personally, I like man pages. Windows help is ok, if all you need to do is user-level tasks. I can't stand Microsoft's developer information -- their examples always seem like a chance for the tech writers to show off, rather than conveying the information is a clear and concise manner. I've found that most decent documentation on MS stuff is only available in dead tree form by third party publishers.
# Stupid Default Settings
This is a matter of opinion, and not really a fault of the OS. I find the bash aliases of most distributions lacking, just as I find certain things in Windows different from what I want.
A matter of opinion, yes. That was the basis of this article, if you didn't notice. But when default settings are downright dangerous (like hiding file extensions), I consider it stupid.
# Stupid Path Separators
Another matter of opinion.
I guess you've never tried to write a cross-platform application that dealt with the filesystem. As usual MS has to be different from everyone else for no good reason.
# Stupid Text File Format
Yet another matter of opinion. Although I'm fairly certain Windows uses a standard text file format, it can easily read either in WordPad.
I consider any system with a special 'text file format' to be brain damaged. Why should text files be different from any other file? Anyway, the difference in the case of Windows is that lines in with \r\n whereas *nix ends lines with \n (and Apple uses \r)
# Reluctance to Support Monopoly
And the final matter of opinion.
Of course! This article was asking what keeps me off Windows, and opinions are a part of that. You came off like my OS choice insults you personally, and that's just silly.
Let's talk about things like sending and receiving instant messages.
Gaim works perfectly well for me, it supports pratically all the major protocols, and comes packaged with most major distributions these days. (As usual, there's a plethora of others if Gaim isn't your bag.) Granted, there's no webcam/voice support but you simply said messaging.:)
I first seriously spent time with Linux back in 2001 (RH 7.0), and admittedly did not fully appreciate open source software at the time. My interest was mainly to get a free, home version of a *nix system. (since I had previously worked with Solaris)
When I wiped Win2k off my computer and ran SuSE 8.0 full time (2002), I had come to realize that free software could not be dominated and manipulated like a closed OS like 'Doze, and offers benefits that can never be offered by closed source, like customization and the capability for independant auditing.
Apache has twice the market share of microsoft IIS.
Actually, the current Netcraft survey puts Apache market share at 67% and IIS market share at 21%. That's a little more than triple. Don't know how IIS servers masquerading as Apache affect their survey, though.
While the heads of regulatory bodies may be cabinet members (I don't think that they're required to be, however), there is still a disconnect between voters and these government organizations.
The founding fathers originally set up a system where all lawmakers were answerable to voters. That system has been corrupted for so long now, most people don't even realize it should be any different. If the FCC makes a law you don't like, who can you vote out of office?
a) scads of people walking on the bike trail
b) tourists pedalling those weird car-bikes from navy pier
c) tourists on segways which will take up an entire lane (and riders who are probably novices)
Talk about a ringing endorsement! MS should put that tagline on their commercials, you know, the ones where some office lackey supposedly saves the company $500 million by installing Outlook 2003 or something..
How does the quote go? "Beware the accumulation of power in places inaccessible to voters."
This mess started when the US introduced regulatory bodies like the FBI, CIA, IRS, etc. which do not answer to voters yet have the power to enact their own laws.
I'm currently taking a course in business law. These disclaimers are theoretically a contract, so let's examine them to see if they are valid:
Contracts have four requirements to be valid:
Agreement
Consideration
Capacity
Legality
Agreement: Even if you have a previous business relationship with the sender, this "disclaimer" would constiture new terms, and thus be considered terms for a new contract. The recipient is under no obligation to accept. Consideration: The sender is offering nothing of value in return for acceptance. Courts usually don't look fondly upon one-sided contracts. Capacity: The recipient may have contractual capacity (age, mental competance, etc), or they may not. In the case of an email transmission, capacity of both parties is unknown. Legality: The terms of the contract must be legal. Courts usually frown on contracts that reduce the constitutional rights of the offeree, especially if the offeror wields an undue amount of power.
Summary: Take this "contract" before a Judge and it will be laughed out of court.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Re:I'm sure this is an excellent article...
on
Browser Wars Mark II
·
· Score: 1
Are we talking about the same site? I had a look at the style sheet for informit.com, and although they make some browser-specific hacks I'm not overly fond of, it seems at first glance like the background/font colors are being specified correctly.
Also, you may want to give these bookmarklets a try for your css needs.
Re:I'm sure this is an excellent article...
on
Browser Wars Mark II
·
· Score: 1
I'm well aware of the function and usage of CSS, I use it myself. I'm also aware that it's recommended to set both a font color and a background color. However if only one of these is specified, it's up to the browser to render the page in a way that's useful. Although this circumstance is the fault of the page author, it's also partially the fault of the browser, which chose to render a black background even though the font color was specified as the same color.
I'm still curious what browser this was, and guessing it was Opera.
Re:I'm sure this is an excellent article...
on
Browser Wars Mark II
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
I noticed the exact same thing recently with a client site, whose specifications included a Flash animation, and a DHTML menu that would go over the Flash piece. To make it work, I had to enable background transparency (or some such thing) in the Flash animation, then give the menu a higher Z-index than the Flash. Worked fine with Firefox .8 on Windoze, but Moz 1.6 on Linux always rendered the Flash in the foreground. Not sure if that was using the new Flash plugin, though.
Does Ctrl+N create a new window that is a duplicate/clone of the current window?
Is that the behavior you desire? If so, I must admit my confusion as to why you'd want two browser windows with the same page loaded at the same time. And if your purpose is to follow links from a page while keeping the page itself around, opening links in tabs to perform that function is %1000 more efficient than opening new windows (and reloading the original page into the new window each time).
At $30/mo for low-traffic sites, I think the price is way too high. IMO, it would be more reasonable to charge $5/mo for low traffic, and maybe $30/mo for a high traffic site. Neat idea, though.
# Possible Backdoors/No Auditability
This is true of any downloaded program. Unless oneself spends their own time looking through the source for every piece of software you use, you may never know if there is. You cannot trust others, as they may have been the ones that put it there.
Actually it's only true of any closed source program. Even though you personally may not have the time or inclination to audit source code, it is a very real and tangible benefit for many people, organizations, governments, etc.
# General Flakeyness/BSOD
This is a pretty big myth since the sale of Windows 2000 started. Windows XP is very stable and can be run for months and months without reboot as long as you don't run flaky software on it. It will also not degrade if you do not install flaky software. Instances of these are Gator and Cydoor.
Windows stability has improved, I'll grant you that. But it's still not as good as it could be, evidenced be your 'flaky software' copout. User space software should not be able to crash a modern OS. Also since I forgot to mention Windows security problems, I guess that would also fall under this heading.
# Consumer Mentality
This doesn't really have anything to do with the OS itself, it merely shows that you are trying to divert attention. The elitist nature of many OSS developers is much worse than what I've seen from Windows people.
Wow, you read a lot into that statement. Basically, I don't like the way MS tends to dumb-down their software. ("Are you sure you want to delete this file?" That's why I bloody clicked delete, now isn't it?!)
# Forced Upgrades
# Forced requires that something is making you do the upgrades, that you cannot keep with what you have. To my knowledge, no one is stopping you from installing Windows 3.1 and using it. It's just that you probably don't want to.
OK, nobody is holding a gun to your head to upgrade. But if you want to open that Excel sheet Joe in marketing sent you, and he's got Excel 2005 and you only have Excel 2000, well it's time to upgrade, eh?
# Poor Documentation
Most *nix people tell you to Google or RTFM, if you Google for Windows you find info as well. If you click on Help, there's actually stuff there too. It's in a much nicer format than man pages, and you can search it very easily.
Personally, I like man pages. Windows help is ok, if all you need to do is user-level tasks. I can't stand Microsoft's developer information -- their examples always seem like a chance for the tech writers to show off, rather than conveying the information is a clear and concise manner. I've found that most decent documentation on MS stuff is only available in dead tree form by third party publishers.
# Stupid Default Settings
This is a matter of opinion, and not really a fault of the OS. I find the bash aliases of most distributions lacking, just as I find certain things in Windows different from what I want.
A matter of opinion, yes. That was the basis of this article, if you didn't notice. But when default settings are downright dangerous (like hiding file extensions), I consider it stupid.
# Stupid Path Separators
Another matter of opinion.
I guess you've never tried to write a cross-platform application that dealt with the filesystem. As usual MS has to be different from everyone else for no good reason.
# Stupid Text File Format
Yet another matter of opinion. Although I'm fairly certain Windows uses a standard text file format, it can easily read either in WordPad.
I consider any system with a special 'text file format' to be brain damaged. Why should text files be different from any other file? Anyway, the difference in the case of Windows is that lines in with \r\n whereas *nix ends lines with \n (and Apple uses \r)
# Reluctance to Support Monopoly
And the final matter of opinion.
Of course! This article was asking what keeps me off Windows, and opinions are a part of that. You came off like my OS choice insults you personally, and that's just silly.
Perhaps you'd like to post a rebuttal, instead of simply dismissing my comments out of hand?
I don't hate VB because non-coders can use it, I hate VB because it forces me to think like a non-coder in order to use it.
That's what they make WineX for. :)
Let's talk about things like sending and receiving instant messages.
Gaim works perfectly well for me, it supports pratically all the major protocols, and comes packaged with most major distributions these days. (As usual, there's a plethora of others if Gaim isn't your bag.) Granted, there's no webcam/voice support but you simply said messaging. :)
I first seriously spent time with Linux back in 2001 (RH 7.0), and admittedly did not fully appreciate open source software at the time. My interest was mainly to get a free, home version of a *nix system. (since I had previously worked with Solaris)
When I wiped Win2k off my computer and ran SuSE 8.0 full time (2002), I had come to realize that free software could not be dominated and manipulated like a closed OS like 'Doze, and offers benefits that can never be offered by closed source, like customization and the capability for independant auditing.
So what's keeping me off Windows?
I just don't understand why people use the "free" 10-user version of IIS to host publicly acessible websites. Here's a clue, guys!
Apache has twice the market share of microsoft IIS.
Actually, the current Netcraft survey puts Apache market share at 67% and IIS market share at 21%. That's a little more than triple. Don't know how IIS servers masquerading as Apache affect their survey, though.
Yeah, but when he returns, you won't believe his speed.. ;)
While the heads of regulatory bodies may be cabinet members (I don't think that they're required to be, however), there is still a disconnect between voters and these government organizations.
The founding fathers originally set up a system where all lawmakers were answerable to voters. That system has been corrupted for so long now, most people don't even realize it should be any different. If the FCC makes a law you don't like, who can you vote out of office?
Great, so now lakefront cyclists have to avoid:
a) scads of people walking on the bike trail
b) tourists pedalling those weird car-bikes from navy pier
c) tourists on segways which will take up an entire lane (and riders who are probably novices)
Mmmm, lard..
Do you have stairs in your house?
On a similar note, but a bit more subtle is Bender's apartment number: 00100100
(that's a '$', for the non-ASCII literate)
If you think about it, Windows isn't THAT bad.
Talk about a ringing endorsement! MS should put that tagline on their commercials, you know, the ones where some office lackey supposedly saves the company $500 million by installing Outlook 2003 or something..
What candidate got your vote to head the Dept. of Homeland Security? How about the FBI? CIA?
How does the quote go? "Beware the accumulation of power in places inaccessible to voters."
This mess started when the US introduced regulatory bodies like the FBI, CIA, IRS, etc. which do not answer to voters yet have the power to enact their own laws.
I'm currently taking a course in business law. These disclaimers are theoretically a contract, so let's examine them to see if they are valid:
Contracts have four requirements to be valid:
- Agreement
- Consideration
- Capacity
- Legality
Agreement: Even if you have a previous business relationship with the sender, this "disclaimer" would constiture new terms, and thus be considered terms for a new contract. The recipient is under no obligation to accept.Consideration: The sender is offering nothing of value in return for acceptance. Courts usually don't look fondly upon one-sided contracts.
Capacity: The recipient may have contractual capacity (age, mental competance, etc), or they may not. In the case of an email transmission, capacity of both parties is unknown.
Legality: The terms of the contract must be legal. Courts usually frown on contracts that reduce the constitutional rights of the offeree, especially if the offeror wields an undue amount of power.
Summary: Take this "contract" before a Judge and it will be laughed out of court.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Are we talking about the same site? I had a look at the style sheet for informit.com, and although they make some browser-specific hacks I'm not overly fond of, it seems at first glance like the background/font colors are being specified correctly.
Also, you may want to give these bookmarklets a try for your css needs.
I'm well aware of the function and usage of CSS, I use it myself. I'm also aware that it's recommended to set both a font color and a background color. However if only one of these is specified, it's up to the browser to render the page in a way that's useful. Although this circumstance is the fault of the page author, it's also partially the fault of the browser, which chose to render a black background even though the font color was specified as the same color.
I'm still curious what browser this was, and guessing it was Opera.
What (apparently crappy) browser are you using?
I'm filling the sucker full of lead.
Hey, that's your choice and I respect you for it. Personally, I'd just twist their head off.