You give me 10.234 dollars, here, outside of the US, and I will give you back 10,234. It's a deal. 10,243 means 10234/1000 to people outside of the US, and 10.234 means 10234
You could start by reading his site at http://the.sourceforge.net
It started as a page for "the humane environment", starting with a text editor, using things that are now common, like a kind of non-modal incremental searching. The project aims to implement a full working environment for computer related tasks, getting read of the concept of desktop, and application, and files. The page hosts now his personal site, too.
There is a lot of material that I had read in his book. He addresses important issues that come up everyday with computer usage, and solutions he proposes.
He talks about the need to have someone with knowledge (not JR himelf, but someone who has read a couple of books con cognitive sciences, and interface design) in the designer team.
Well, signing a NDA is not a nice thing. In fact, it's the main reason we have free systems nowadays, because RMS wasn't willing to sign a fucking NDA, so he had to start the GNU operating system.
I wouldn't sign a fucking NDA either. Noone can tell me what I can do with what I know. I wouldn't be worth much if I couldn't use my knowledge.
NDAs can have the power to prevent you from developing things, just because the whole way in which Intellectual "Property" is managed in most places. It's not a non-issue, it's a sensible thing to do to refuse to sign an NDA. Of course, it would be sensible to stop buying from the jackass that wants you to sign the damn NDA, in the first place.
As an excercise, suppose a community is formed, and does a useful R&D, and copylefts it (e.g.: GPL).
Maybe VIA, or some other low-cost competitor would implement the design, benefiting from zero R&D cost, and from a potentially big buying force (free software users).
VIA wins, because they can sell good quality products with slashed costs, and no licenses, plus they get a good image ("OS" is a nice marketing term nowadays) We win, because we can get more powerful, and standard video hardware.
I believe this kind of deal is the most feasible, and I don't think it's a bad scenario.
Do it a-la Fangio. When you want to downshift, You set it on neutral, with no clutch, step on the accel for an instant to accumulate momentum on the gear box, then you downshift, hitting the clutch, but you hit the lower gear with RPMs as high as they should be. Of course, for the faint of heart, you can downshift hitting two times the clutch. Sorry, you were talking about downshifting in order to break a little entering a curve, I was talking about downshifting to gain power when you have already lost it.
And with digital TV sets, the cost of the hardware could be reduced even more, just a bluetooth keyboard/touchpad_or_mouse combo, and a small tivo_ps2_xbox_ipod_mediacenter box, it could be very cheap, and standardizable.
Piracy is attacking ships and killing their tripuliation, stealing the cargo.
Intellectual property is not property. IT is not finite, and _in_principle_ should not have distribution issues. Of course, most governments grant people a _temporary_ monopoly to profit from their "IP" so they release more works. If that scheme ceases to work, we can just go to the other scheme, where noone is granted any monopoly, and IP is not seen as property anymore, so noone can "steal" it.
It's not theft, it's copyright infringement. But it is copyleft infringement, too.
1 - The copyright is intended to provide a monopoly for an author. When I copy a CD for a friend, I infringe copyright, I am breaking a monopoly.
2 - The copyleft is intended to use the monopoly rules to break itself, making a free work. When they make free software proprietary, they infringe copyleft, they are taking a free work, from the author, and depriving the users, plus the author, from derivative works, imposing a monopoly.
If you watch closely, the same [broken] law is infringed, but the results are quite opposite. I, myself, stand for freedom. In case 1, freedom is attained. In case 2, freedom is lost. If you watch more closely, you will see that I don't care much about authors in this matter, but I care about the users.
That depends on what you define as ordinary use. Labs, and even corporate computers could make use of this, coupled with a central, secure content management system. In that case, only the data container would have to be taken care of, while client computers could have the software intalled on cd. All that could be better accomplished with DRM, but that hurts waaaaaaay more than it helps.
The US don't attack France and Germany now, because it would just hurt too much for US people to bare with.
The US change at their will the governors of countries for people frienldy to them, and even CIA agents, as was the case with Noriega, who attained his power with US support, or most of LatinAmerica, where US troops trained in Panama the military death squads that killed civilians in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and most of South America in the 60's, the 70's and the 80's.
Those they can't control, they buy. Those that can't be bought, because they think they have enough power, like Saddam, are destroyed.
Destroying Iraqs government, and imposing one that is fond of the US is not called "leaving" in my book. It's called "delegation", and middle management.
I talk about murder by the US. Saddam is a murderer. At least he is mostly alone. Bush is not alone, and most of the people of the US support the murders he commits. That's something to be ashamed of.
I think that the US are the most dangerous contry in the world, because they have created the middle east conflict, as we know it. It was a conflictive area before, but "terrorism" as we know it, was not created before the opression supported mostly by the US gave an excuse for the jihad. Add that to the fact that, although they are not the only country with nuclear weapons, they are the only ones that have actually used them against mankind.
So, they are ultra-powerful, known murderers, people supported, war mongers. Yes, they are the biggest threat to mankind that exists right now.
I would divide your statement in two sections. First, you speak about what they did on the inside of their country. Nobody messed with them about that. They could have killed everybody in their country before others cared about them. International disputes are about international issues. In-country atrocities are easily overlooked by other countries. Like the things people from the US say about China, but they never think about messing with them. The US has now a history of using internal issues of other countries, in order to invade them and pillage what's left, and in the meanwhile showing off their power to kill people. And they call it preemptiveness, or deterrance. Smacking someone, or threats are deterrance, actually killing people by the dozen is just plain common murder.
Then you speak about their relationship with the outside, now it sounds like you are talking about the US, nowadays. The only difference with Germany is that the US has now actually more power to kill than every other nation combined, and that is why they don't get the same treatment, because in this story the US are the crazed bastards killing everybody in their way, but there's noone able to stop them.
If the main feature you use from MS Word is reading MS.DOC, oowriter might have problems replacing it (many fewer on 1.1.x than on 1.0).
I, on the other hand, use it as a word processor, and I am very happy with it. The only problem I have is that its GUI is too much of a copy of MSOffice's. In the points it differs, for example the math editor, 10x the writing speed I good with MSWord's, it's far superior. Happy me I just need a word processor, and that I can read everybodys.DOCs just fine. If I couldn't, of course, I would just need a.PDF or.PS, easily produced by any version of MSWord.
In the small niche of cross-editing MSWord documents, between different people, maybe you need MSWord, but it only lets you work with people who have the same version, on the same platform. That's not doable in a bussiness where the main activity is not editing MSWord documents. It would be a much sensibler choice, in compatibility, productivity and cost, to use openoffice everywhere, using a standard, documented format, for important documents, instead of a format that is too closed for real world needs.
You are losing the point, and it, at the same time.
I was just trying to explain to you, and you refuse to understand, that digital volume control is feasible, and easy. There is a difference between decoding, and DAC. You can decode the digital stream, resample the digital audio with a smaller aplitude, and then recode it, all that without loss of digital quality. More important, cable boxes do have to decode the lossy stream, and encode it as plain audio, so they can many non-lossy transformations to the resulting wave, including amplitude control. Even pitch could be changed without loss of quality, at the decoder.
On the part about the expectations of consumers, I agree with you in the fact that consumers are idiots. I disagree in your assumptions that they can change. I refuse to believe that consumer people are happy to program a remote control.
Consumer-ready means "no config required". Maybe you believe programming a remote control is acceptable for a consumer. You are wrong. The same happened to me. I used to believe that installing a GNU/Linux distribution was so easy and quick it was ready for most people. They proved me wrong. People want to but stuff and using, and learn nothing in the process.
2d displays are there because we use 2d info. The 2d, bounded interface we know from centuries, the sheet of paper. Every action we do on a computer, we have to learn it in 2d before we can acomplish it.
We don't use 3d interfaces because they are useless. When the become useful, it will make sense to use 3d displays and input devices. This is good, because we aleady know the 3d interface, without having to re-learn anything. Plus, on top of that, we can use the 2d interface, so we don't lose anything. Plus, if you take into account that display technology is reaching the limits of human vision, you can see that the ability to generate full immersive environments is not too far away. I believe your concern is about badly designed, primitive 3d interfaces, but we should be thinking about the next 3d interfaces, that should evolve to become effective, using current an future technology
I believe that even _if_ file trading _were_ illegal, it would be responsibility of the one who did it. So, if it were illegal, P2P networks would not be to blame. If it were not, the RIAA would be to blame, because of hassling people, and agains, P2P network would not.
Aside from that argument, it is the one about file trading, and ethics, and morals, and fair use, and unfair laws dictated by the strongest parts of the issue, in a fascist (by that I mean "corporation-ruled", not "italian-dictator-ruled") country.
I am aware of that. In fact, what I just discovered is that I just like gnome, because it has been much easier for me to get a pretty, clean gnome desktop, than a clean KDE desktop.
Anyway, I don't like the KDE apps either, I believe it's a philosophy thing, too many KDE apps are based on mswin counterparts, and inherit broken interfaces. Gnome seems to me more independent, and I believe it's a good thing.
Hmmmmm Maybe default themes have scared you. I am using the "Gorilla" GTK theme, with the "Bright" window decorations, and the default GNome icons, and I find it exactly that, simple, and lacking eye candy. A single bar at the top of my desktop, with a launcher, a menu and a couple of icons. Very easily customizable, a window menu instead of a window bar, and sleek as hell. Maybe the feature I like the most of gnome is easy customizability, and low-fat themes (the one that are actually low-fat). Default fonts look clean, and nice earth colors are easy on the eyes.
At this point I'm starting to believe that the only reason I don't like KDE is that I have trouble configuring it, and so whe I have to launch a KDE app, it just looks awful on _my_ desktop.
So, I'll change my vote. I vote gnome because of it's easy configurability, and nice defaults, not it's features.
That's what I was talking about in the second part of my post. Expectations. Consumer level devices shouldn't need configuration, or knowledge about what digital stuff can or cannot do. They should just work.
I don't own a stand alone DVD box, my computer is my media box. My VCR _remote_control_ does have a volume control, that controls the tv volume, _with_no_ configuration, transparently. In fact, if it didn't work out of the box, it would have seem too clumsy to me. When I want to configure things, I use Slackware, and get extra featres that consumer sets don't give me, but consumer stuff should not require consumer knowledge, because consumers don't enjoy learning stuff.
I don't want to hear all that technical gibberish about encoding and decoding audio. Consumer stuff doesn't work that way, it just works. My cable decoder has volume control, so I can hold just one remote in my hand while watching cable, and I don't need to read any manual to configure it. The part about XMMS was just about explaining that digital volume control is something that can be done, even when you have to decode audio.
I have a digital audio source. It's called xmms. It has volume control. Then I use ESD, and then an audio driver. It has volume control. After that, I have a DAC, and then a set of analog speakers, and those have an audio knob, too. See? I have digital volume control, and analog volume control. If you mean that they shouldn't expect to have volume control, maybe it's because you are not thinking about regular people. The correct assumptio is that if I have an appliance that is a source of audio, and it has a remote control, it has to have a volume control. Just because _professional_ digital audio systems shouldn't have a volume control, it doesn't mean that _consumer_ sets shouldn't.
Programming their remote to command a different device is a feat above most users expectations. Assumptions like that are guilty of the blinking 12:00 fiasco.
Population wise, it is poverty what makes us grow. Eating shit, but reproducing nevertheless.
People who have enough money to get an education don't have seven children.
I believe we don't have the power to kill everything that lives. Of course, we have the power to destroy our ecosystem, and ourselves, but earth is much bigger than that. Seeing the big picture, yes, we are a part of nature, and nature is much bigger than us, and we can't fight nature. The only survival we should care about is ours. Destroying species is not bad because of ethics issues. It's bad because every species is potentially benefitial to our survival, in the long run. I don't believe that shit about the immoralit of destroying our ecosystem. We are the superior beings in this place, and we can do as we wish. Destroying our home would be dumb, but the real reason to protect it is our survival, noone elses.
But there is the remaining fact: Gnome is just prettier!! KDE is good for people who like MSWin, because they implement many of their metaphors. I enjoy Gnome, because I believe it's much simpler, and because it's not based on broken metaphors. I understand why a programmer would choose QT over GTK (GTK has been kind of hard on me) , but from a user point of view, it just looks sleek, and well polished. Maybe it just depends on the choice of fonts, or something like that, but my gnome desktop looks much more professional than my co-workers variuos KDE desktops. That, added to the fact that license-wise, QT is not perfect, and GTK is, to me, it's a no-brainer.
Slashdot Mirror
You give me 10.234 dollars, here, outside of the US, and I will give you back 10,234.
It's a deal.
10,243 means 10234/1000 to people outside of the US, and 10.234 means 10234
You could start by reading his site at http://the.sourceforge.net
It started as a page for "the humane environment", starting with a text editor, using things that are now common, like a kind of non-modal incremental searching. The project aims to implement a full working environment for computer related tasks, getting read of the concept of desktop, and application, and files.
The page hosts now his personal site, too.
There is a lot of material that I had read in his book. He addresses important issues that come up everyday with computer usage, and solutions he proposes.
He talks about the need to have someone with knowledge (not JR himelf, but someone who has read a couple of books con cognitive sciences, and interface design) in the designer team.
Well, signing a NDA is not a nice thing.
In fact, it's the main reason we have free systems nowadays, because RMS wasn't willing to sign a fucking NDA, so he had to start the GNU operating system.
I wouldn't sign a fucking NDA either. Noone can tell me what I can do with what I know. I wouldn't be worth much if I couldn't use my knowledge.
NDAs can have the power to prevent you from developing things, just because the whole way in which Intellectual "Property" is managed in most places. It's not a non-issue, it's a sensible thing to do to refuse to sign an NDA. Of course, it would be sensible to stop buying from the jackass that wants you to sign the damn NDA, in the first place.
As an excercise, suppose a community is formed, and does a useful R&D, and copylefts it (e.g.: GPL).
Maybe VIA, or some other low-cost competitor would implement the design, benefiting from zero R&D cost, and from a potentially big buying force (free software users).
VIA wins, because they can sell good quality products with slashed costs, and no licenses, plus they get a good image ("OS" is a nice marketing term nowadays)
We win, because we can get more powerful, and standard video hardware.
I believe this kind of deal is the most feasible, and I don't think it's a bad scenario.
Do it a-la Fangio.
When you want to downshift, You set it on neutral, with no clutch, step on the accel for an instant to accumulate momentum on the gear box, then you downshift, hitting the clutch, but you hit the lower gear with RPMs as high as they should be.
Of course, for the faint of heart, you can downshift hitting two times the clutch.
Sorry, you were talking about downshifting in order to break a little entering a curve, I was talking about downshifting to gain power when you have already lost it.
And with digital TV sets, the cost of the hardware could be reduced even more, just a bluetooth keyboard/touchpad_or_mouse combo, and a small tivo_ps2_xbox_ipod_mediacenter box, it could be very cheap, and standardizable.
Piracy is attacking ships and killing their tripuliation, stealing the cargo.
Intellectual property is not property. IT is not finite, and _in_principle_ should not have distribution issues. Of course, most governments grant people a _temporary_ monopoly to profit from their "IP" so they release more works. If that scheme ceases to work, we can just go to the other scheme, where noone is granted any monopoly, and IP is not seen as property anymore, so noone can "steal" it.
I don't know you, but I feel much safer recharging a flammable lighter than a highly explosive battery.
It's not theft, it's copyright infringement. But it is copyleft infringement, too.
1 - The copyright is intended to provide a monopoly for an author. When I copy a CD for a friend, I infringe copyright, I am breaking a monopoly.
2 - The copyleft is intended to use the monopoly rules to break itself, making a free work. When they make free software proprietary, they infringe copyleft, they are taking a free work, from the author, and depriving the users, plus the author, from derivative works, imposing a monopoly.
If you watch closely, the same [broken] law is infringed, but the results are quite opposite. I, myself, stand for freedom. In case 1, freedom is attained. In case 2, freedom is lost. If you watch more closely, you will see that I don't care much about authors in this matter, but I care about the users.
That depends on what you define as ordinary use.
Labs, and even corporate computers could make use of this, coupled with a central, secure content management system. In that case, only the data container would have to be taken care of, while client computers could have the software intalled on cd. All that could be better accomplished with DRM, but that hurts waaaaaaay more than it helps.
The US don't attack France and Germany now, because it would just hurt too much for US people to bare with.
The US change at their will the governors of countries for people frienldy to them, and even CIA agents, as was the case with Noriega, who attained his power with US support, or most of LatinAmerica, where US troops trained in Panama the military death squads that killed civilians in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and most of South America in the 60's, the 70's and the 80's.
Those they can't control, they buy. Those that can't be bought, because they think they have enough power, like Saddam, are destroyed.
Destroying Iraqs government, and imposing one that is fond of the US is not called "leaving" in my book. It's called "delegation", and middle management.
I talk about murder by the US. Saddam is a murderer. At least he is mostly alone. Bush is not alone, and most of the people of the US support the murders he commits. That's something to be ashamed of.
I think that the US are the most dangerous contry in the world, because they have created the middle east conflict, as we know it. It was a conflictive area before, but "terrorism" as we know it, was not created before the opression supported mostly by the US gave an excuse for the jihad.
Add that to the fact that, although they are not the only country with nuclear weapons, they are the only ones that have actually used them against mankind.
So, they are ultra-powerful, known murderers, people supported, war mongers. Yes, they are the biggest threat to mankind that exists right now.
I would divide your statement in two sections. First, you speak about what they did on the inside of their country. Nobody messed with them about that. They could have killed everybody in their country before others cared about them. International disputes are about international issues. In-country atrocities are easily overlooked by other countries. Like the things people from the US say about China, but they never think about messing with them. The US has now a history of using internal issues of other countries, in order to invade them and pillage what's left, and in the meanwhile showing off their power to kill people. And they call it preemptiveness, or deterrance. Smacking someone, or threats are deterrance, actually killing people by the dozen is just plain common murder.
Then you speak about their relationship with the outside, now it sounds like you are talking about the US, nowadays. The only difference with Germany is that the US has now actually more power to kill than every other nation combined, and that is why they don't get the same treatment, because in this story the US are the crazed bastards killing everybody in their way, but there's noone able to stop them.
If the main feature you use from MS Word is reading MS .DOC, oowriter might have problems replacing it (many fewer on 1.1.x than on 1.0).
.DOCs just fine. .PDF or .PS, easily produced by any version of MSWord.
I, on the other hand, use it as a word processor, and I am very happy with it.
The only problem I have is that its GUI is too much of a copy of MSOffice's. In the points it differs, for example the math editor, 10x the writing speed I good with MSWord's, it's far superior. Happy me I just need a word processor, and that I can read everybodys
If I couldn't, of course, I would just need a
In the small niche of cross-editing MSWord documents, between different people, maybe you need MSWord, but it only lets you work with people who have the same version, on the same platform. That's not doable in a bussiness where the main activity is not editing MSWord documents.
It would be a much sensibler choice, in compatibility, productivity and cost, to use openoffice everywhere, using a standard, documented format, for important documents, instead of a format that is too closed for real world needs.
"And that same programmer probably stays up at night wondering why he's still a virgin."
I take it logic puzzles were never your strong point.
Come to think of it, if I were a virgin with a daughter, and she weren't adopted, I would have things to wonder other than the cause of my virginity!
You are losing the point, and it, at the same time.
I was just trying to explain to you, and you refuse to understand, that digital volume control is feasible, and easy. There is a difference between decoding, and DAC. You can decode the digital stream, resample the digital audio with a smaller aplitude, and then recode it, all that without loss of digital quality. More important, cable boxes do have to decode the lossy stream, and encode it as plain audio, so they can many non-lossy transformations to the resulting wave, including amplitude control. Even pitch could be changed without loss of quality, at the decoder.
On the part about the expectations of consumers, I agree with you in the fact that consumers are idiots. I disagree in your assumptions that they can change. I refuse to believe that consumer people are happy to program a remote control.
Consumer-ready means "no config required". Maybe you believe programming a remote control is acceptable for a consumer. You are wrong. The same happened to me. I used to believe that installing a GNU/Linux distribution was so easy and quick it was ready for most people. They proved me wrong. People want to but stuff and using, and learn nothing in the process.
It just takes about 4 times as much pixels to rotate a 2d picture. Or 4000 pixels (about the eyes dominant part resoluction) at the right distance.
2d displays are there because we use 2d info.
The 2d, bounded interface we know from centuries, the sheet of paper. Every action we do on a computer, we have to learn it in 2d before we can acomplish it.
We don't use 3d interfaces because they are useless. When the become useful, it will make sense to use 3d displays and input devices. This is good, because we aleady know the 3d interface, without having to re-learn anything. Plus, on top of that, we can use the 2d interface, so we don't lose anything.
Plus, if you take into account that display technology is reaching the limits of human vision, you can see that the ability to generate full immersive environments is not too far away.
I believe your concern is about badly designed, primitive 3d interfaces, but we should be thinking about the next 3d interfaces, that should evolve to become effective, using current an future technology
No paradox here.
I believe that even _if_ file trading _were_ illegal, it would be responsibility of the one who did it. So, if it were illegal, P2P networks would not be to blame. If it were not, the RIAA would be to blame, because of hassling people, and agains, P2P network would not.
Aside from that argument, it is the one about file trading, and ethics, and morals, and fair use, and unfair laws dictated by the strongest parts of the issue, in a fascist (by that I mean "corporation-ruled", not "italian-dictator-ruled") country.
"Prettier" is not an objective argument
I am aware of that.
In fact, what I just discovered is that I just like gnome, because it has been much easier for me to get a pretty, clean gnome desktop, than a clean KDE desktop.
Anyway, I don't like the KDE apps either, I believe it's a philosophy thing, too many KDE apps are based on mswin counterparts, and inherit broken interfaces. Gnome seems to me more independent, and I believe it's a good thing.
Hmmmmm
Maybe default themes have scared you.
I am using the "Gorilla" GTK theme, with the "Bright" window decorations, and the default GNome icons, and I find it exactly that, simple, and lacking eye candy. A single bar at the top of my desktop, with a launcher, a menu and a couple of icons. Very easily customizable, a window menu instead of a window bar, and sleek as hell. Maybe the feature I like the most of gnome is easy customizability, and low-fat themes (the one that are actually low-fat). Default fonts look clean, and nice earth colors are easy on the eyes.
At this point I'm starting to believe that the only reason I don't like KDE is that I have trouble configuring it, and so whe I have to launch a KDE app, it just looks awful on _my_ desktop.
So, I'll change my vote.
I vote gnome because of it's easy configurability, and nice defaults, not it's features.
That's what I was talking about in the second part of my post. Expectations. Consumer level devices shouldn't need configuration, or knowledge about what digital stuff can or cannot do. They should just work.
I don't own a stand alone DVD box, my computer is my media box. My VCR _remote_control_ does have a volume control, that controls the tv volume, _with_no_ configuration, transparently. In fact, if it didn't work out of the box, it would have seem too clumsy to me. When I want to configure things, I use Slackware, and get extra featres that consumer sets don't give me, but consumer stuff should not require consumer knowledge, because consumers don't enjoy learning stuff.
I don't want to hear all that technical gibberish about encoding and decoding audio. Consumer stuff doesn't work that way, it just works. My cable decoder has volume control, so I can hold just one remote in my hand while watching cable, and I don't need to read any manual to configure it. The part about XMMS was just about explaining that digital volume control is something that can be done, even when you have to decode audio.
I have a digital audio source. It's called xmms.
It has volume control.
Then I use ESD, and then an audio driver.
It has volume control.
After that, I have a DAC, and then a set of analog speakers, and those have an audio knob, too.
See?
I have digital volume control, and analog volume control.
If you mean that they shouldn't expect to have volume control, maybe it's because you are not thinking about regular people. The correct assumptio is that if I have an appliance that is a source of audio, and it has a remote control, it has to have a volume control.
Just because _professional_ digital audio systems shouldn't have a volume control, it doesn't mean that _consumer_ sets shouldn't.
Programming their remote to command a different device is a feat above most users expectations. Assumptions like that are guilty of the blinking 12:00 fiasco.
Population wise, it is poverty what makes us grow.
Eating shit, but reproducing nevertheless.
People who have enough money to get an education don't have seven children.
I believe we don't have the power to kill everything that lives. Of course, we have the power to destroy our ecosystem, and ourselves, but earth is much bigger than that. Seeing the big picture, yes, we are a part of nature, and nature is much bigger than us, and we can't fight nature. The only survival we should care about is ours. Destroying species is not bad because of ethics issues. It's bad because every species is potentially benefitial to our survival, in the long run. I don't believe that shit about the immoralit of destroying our ecosystem. We are the superior beings in this place, and we can do as we wish. Destroying our home would be dumb, but the real reason to protect it is our survival, noone elses.
But there is the remaining fact:
Gnome is just prettier!!
KDE is good for people who like MSWin, because they implement many of their metaphors.
I enjoy Gnome, because I believe it's much simpler, and because it's not based on broken metaphors.
I understand why a programmer would choose QT over GTK (GTK has been kind of hard on me) , but from a user point of view, it just looks sleek, and well polished.
Maybe it just depends on the choice of fonts, or something like that, but my gnome desktop looks much more professional than my co-workers variuos KDE desktops. That, added to the fact that license-wise, QT is not perfect, and GTK is, to me, it's a no-brainer.
A couple lines in Global.asax.
If you don't do any funny things with Global.asax.
Plus testing. Plus deployment.
3 hours
Times all affected sites.
A patch would take less time, surely.
Of course, it's nice to have a workaround when you don't have a patch, anyway.
Using a java application server could take much longer, but it should pay in the end:)