After seeing the vote numbers, I can't help but think that if the elections would have been based on lists (by affiliation) instead of individuals, Sun surely would have gotten one or more people on board. Perhaps I'm just used to Dutch (or European) election systems..:)
Re:Laundry list for the galeon-dev folk reading
on
Galeon 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I ues both Galeon and Mozilla, and while I prefer Galeon, I miss Mozilla's sidebar. It seems to have been coded once (look here) but somehow never made it into the Galeon main distribution.
Ugly? You must have missed some of the goodies available at, for instance, http://projects.netlabs.org/ .
Hard to use? Years of usability research went into the creation of the Workplace Shell, which shows in the consistent and predictable way it works- which cannot be said of certain desktop environments for unix/linux. (Which is why I've joined the GNOME usability project, by the way).
You're spreading disinformation and I suspect you know it as well as I do.
I posted earlier on this subject, but OS/2 (default) GUI, called the Workplace Shell, contains some innovative UI ideas that to thisday have not (or only half-hearted) been implemented in the latest desktop environments. Sundial Systems have a nice page on the subject.
Also, the fact that your videocard perhaps wasn't detected right out of the box, doesn't mean that it won't run at high resolutions. I've found it easier to configure OS/2 to run at 1280x1024@100Hz than to do the same with Xfree86.
Given that, maybe in a year or two Nautilus will pick up in performance and reach a state of usability.
Usability amounts to more than just performance. It has to do with GUI design, taking the user's conceptual model of the computer into account etc. To see what the GNOME Usability Project's proposals for Nautilus are, please visit Nautilus GNOME 2 must-fix list.
Regardless of the stability/compliance level, a move like that would only increase the number of phone calls to the helpdesk, at this moment in any case. Why? Many braindead websites are tested only to work with IE/NS4, or simple refuse non-IE clients. Look for Tech Evangelism bugs (there are 924 of those as I write this) for a few examples.
I'll personally testify that to me, 8.1 feels a lot more snappy and less swap-intensive than 8.0 did. This is especially noticeable when running java processes, mozilla etc. alongside each other. My machine is an Athlon 600 with 128MB. Don't know what they did to achieve this, though.
It's nice that you have found a workaround that works for you. But that doesn't take away the fact that the release notes explicitly say that if you plan to run Mozilla on a multi user system you should install it in every users' home directory separately!
FYI: there are other *IX systems out there than just Debian. Solaris, for example, on the systems of my university. And even if apt-get were installed there, I don't have root. Or enough disk quota to compile it myself. So you see, apt-get is no magic cure for all problems. Downloading the pre-built binaries as a tarball is pretty much the only option I have, and the multi-user installation problem is very relevant.
In the Workplace Shell, the UI choice was made that one notebook tab can have more than one pages. The page you're at is indicated somewhere at the top, like '1/3'. The big advantage is that you don't get a big mess of tabs in your control panel. The disadvantage- as this case probably indicates- is that some users don't cycle through the pages but only click on the tabs, thereby missing some important settings pages.
which IBM released as OS/2 1.3 and MS - eventually - used as a basis for Win9x.
The only thing Win9x 'inherited' from OS/2 was some GUI features and the win32 API, which was (originally) remarkably similar to OS/2's. All else in win9x was just an upgrade to DOS/win3.1.
NT 3.51, OTOH, was partly based on OS/2, evidenced by the fact that - at least until NT4 - NT could run old 16-bit OS/2 textmode apps and had support for OS/2's HPFS file system (PINBALL.SYS IIRC).
Win9x had a much better GUI but...
Have you ever even used the Workplace Shell? True, in Warp 3 the interface looked a bit 'industrial', without too many bells and whistles, but its functionality is unparallelled. If you don't believe me, then read up on Object-Oriented User Interface design (Theo Mandel has some good books on it).
As for the looks, as early as in 1994 there were desktop enhancers (like NPSWPS) that could jazz it up a lot!
It seems like you misunderstand who is producing eCS. It is not IBM. It is a company called Serenity Systems, in cooperation with another company called Mensys. True, IBM did produce the OS itself but the packaging was done by a 3rd party.
There is an awful lot of literature in the field of Human-Computer Interaction. Personally I like the book 'The Elements of User Interface Design' by Theo Mandel, who also worked on the OS/2 Workplace Shell.
There also is a lot of literature available on the Web. Very informative is the User Interface Hall of Shame. You may also want to check out IBM's Easy of Use website. If you are an ACM member you have access to an abundance of articles on various HCI subjects. Personally I find Intelligent User Interfaces an interesting subject.
The solution Apple hit upon was the next best thing-- put them in their own memory space all together, but protect them from other non-classic apps
This is, of course, exactly the same technique that NT4 and 2000 use for 16 bit apps.
Let me note here that this approach is inferior to the one OS/2 took for running DOS and win16 apps. It can give all those apps their own protected memory space so that they are not only separated from modern apps but also from each other. The "shared-memory-space" approach was also an option, of course this requires less memory.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. In The Netherlands we used to have quarters as well. I'll miss them, but life will go on.
The same Kristoffer Bohmann who thinks IE is better
because it can be easily installed with Windows?
So post a link to the bug and ask people to vote for it. Last time I did that, the bug gathered ~50 votes in 12 hours!
After seeing the vote numbers, I can't help but think that if the elections would have been based on lists (by affiliation) instead of individuals, Sun surely would have gotten one or more people on board. Perhaps I'm just used to Dutch (or European) election systems.. :)
I ues both Galeon and Mozilla, and while I prefer Galeon, I miss Mozilla's sidebar. It seems to have been coded once (look here) but somehow never made it into the Galeon main distribution.
Ugly? You must have missed some of the goodies available at, for instance, http://projects.netlabs.org/ .
Hard to use? Years of usability research went into the creation of the Workplace Shell, which shows in the consistent and predictable way it works- which cannot be said of certain desktop environments for unix/linux. (Which is why I've joined the GNOME usability project, by the way).
IIRC it was 'MEIN LEBEN!' (my life!)
and of course... SCHUTZSTAFFEL!
How are the soundfx in the new Wolfenstein remake?
You're spreading disinformation and I suspect you know it as well as I do.
I posted earlier on this subject, but OS/2 (default) GUI, called the Workplace Shell, contains some innovative UI ideas that to thisday have not (or only half-hearted) been implemented in the latest desktop environments. Sundial Systems have a nice page on the subject.
Also, the fact that your videocard perhaps wasn't detected right out of the box, doesn't mean that it won't run at high resolutions. I've found it easier to configure OS/2 to run at 1280x1024@100Hz than to do the same with Xfree86.
twm? you are a troll, aren't you? ;-)
Usability amounts to more than just performance. It has to do with GUI design, taking the user's conceptual model of the computer into account etc. To see what the GNOME Usability Project's proposals for Nautilus are, please visit Nautilus GNOME 2 must-fix list.
The danger of nuclear power lies not in the danger of it "making mutants of us all" but in the waste that will stay radioactive for centuries to come.
Regardless of the stability/compliance level, a move like that would only increase the number of phone calls to the helpdesk, at this moment in any case. Why? Many braindead websites are tested only to work with IE/NS4, or simple refuse non-IE clients. Look for Tech Evangelism bugs (there are 924 of those as I write this) for a few examples.
BS. you can select a JDK (not 1.3.1 per se) if you want but it'll run happily without one. It's just extra functionality.
Have you tried to edit the AutoCorrect replacement table yet?
You want an email program that displays your calendar en task list. Of course, what else would you use an email program for?
Having said that, I'll bet DaveCentral.com has something to your likings.
I'll personally testify that to me, 8.1 feels a lot more snappy and less swap-intensive than 8.0 did. This is especially noticeable when running java processes, mozilla etc. alongside each other. My machine is an Athlon 600 with 128MB. Don't know what they did to achieve this, though.
It's nice that you have found a workaround that works for you. But that doesn't take away the fact that the release notes explicitly say that if you plan to run Mozilla on a multi user system you should install it in every users' home directory separately!
FYI: there are other *IX systems out there than just Debian. Solaris, for example, on the systems of my university. And even if apt-get were installed there, I don't have root. Or enough disk quota to compile it myself. So you see, apt-get is no magic cure for all problems. Downloading the pre-built binaries as a tarball is pretty much the only option I have, and the multi-user installation problem is very relevant.
Use bugzilla! It's more effective than complaining on Slashdot.
0 8
for example:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=791
Thanks to Ben Bucksch you will be able to find how to do that here:
bug 74574. It could use some more votes. (hint)
In the Workplace Shell, the UI choice was made that one notebook tab can have more than one pages. The page you're at is indicated somewhere at the top, like '1/3'. The big advantage is that you don't get a big mess of tabs in your control panel. The disadvantage- as this case probably indicates- is that some users don't cycle through the pages but only click on the tabs, thereby missing some important settings pages.
BTW, I checked your (old) website. Nice OS/2 links!
You mean- those links are still alive? I haven't looked at those pages for years... :-)
The only thing Win9x 'inherited' from OS/2 was some GUI features and the win32 API, which was (originally) remarkably similar to OS/2's. All else in win9x was just an upgrade to DOS/win3.1.
NT 3.51, OTOH, was partly based on OS/2, evidenced by the fact that - at least until NT4 - NT could run old 16-bit OS/2 textmode apps and had support for OS/2's HPFS file system (PINBALL.SYS IIRC).
Win9x had a much better GUI but...
Have you ever even used the Workplace Shell? True, in Warp 3 the interface looked a bit 'industrial', without too many bells and whistles, but its functionality is unparallelled. If you don't believe me, then read up on Object-Oriented User Interface design (Theo Mandel has some good books on it).
As for the looks, as early as in 1994 there were desktop enhancers (like NPSWPS) that could jazz it up a lot!
It seems like you misunderstand who is producing eCS. It is not IBM. It is a company called Serenity Systems, in cooperation with another company called Mensys. True, IBM did produce the OS itself but the packaging was done by a 3rd party.
There is an awful lot of literature in the field of Human-Computer Interaction. Personally I like the book 'The Elements of User Interface Design' by Theo Mandel, who also worked on the OS/2 Workplace Shell.
There also is a lot of literature available on the Web. Very informative is the User Interface Hall of Shame. You may also want to check out IBM's Easy of Use website. If you are an ACM member you have access to an abundance of articles on various HCI subjects. Personally I find Intelligent User Interfaces an interesting subject.
Enough information for now....
This is, of course, exactly the same technique that NT4 and 2000 use for 16 bit apps.
Let me note here that this approach is inferior to the one OS/2 took for running DOS and win16 apps. It can give all those apps their own protected memory space so that they are not only separated from modern apps but also from each other. The "shared-memory-space" approach was also an option, of course this requires less memory.