Web design is not being a code monkey and churning out a site that the client has designed.
Web design is "design". That's why they hire you.
You don't hire an interior designer and give them the design. You tell them the general idea of what you're looking for and they advise you on how to best acheive your goals.
It's the same in web design. The customer shouldn't be saying, "I want this flashy animation here, and cool menus there", but instead, "we want to focus on this product and how to grab the customers attention...".
After that it's up to the *designer* to use his/her *design* skills to successfully acheive that (subject to client approval of course).
If the client is just looking for a code monkey to churn out their design they should hire some kid who doesn't know any better. cheaper and you get the design you want. of course odds are you won't get the results you want out of your site but i guess it's a matter of what's more important; your design or the results you get from it?
Web design has a lot more to do with consultancy and design than with simply writing code
Note that I said all users be *reasonably* educated. At no point do I expect all people to be sysadmins, but I forsee a time when all users do know how to doubleclick or right click and can do that without assistance.
These users might have at least seen their control panel and maybe, just maybe, knows how to use add/remove programs. And if they can use windows update then the battle is half won. I hardly think that's asking too much.
The way you talk you would expect no one ever learned how to use a remote control for their television. A basic understanding comes eventually. Education, even if not formal, is inevitable.
sure. so somewhere, somehow down the line people need to be educated. you can't make all computers simple point and click and eliminate the need for education. let's face it, it's not a toaster or a microwave and never will be that simple.
So the person who sets up the 911 network has to be educated but wouldn't it be better if *all* people acheived some level of reasonable knowledge so that the problem could be avoided entirely?
It's definitely more secure in the sense that if you *are* up to date on all your linux updates and all your MS updates your MS box is still vulnerable to *known* exploits. Just look at the long list of unpatched IE exploits. This is much less the case with Linux
When was the last time you heard of not knowing how to print your MS Word document leading to a 41 car pileup on the highway?
Well when the next Slammer type worm takes out 911 services and causes loss of life because people weren't educated enough about what software they were running and how to apply patches what will you say then?
Perhaps that's because nothing can attempt to replace them at the moment?
If the RIAA ceased to or never existed that doesn't mean that something else better couldn't come along
The internet seems to be to be a great avenue for discovering bands outside of your local scope. Without the RIAA we might see that avenue explored a little further since it's obvious they have no intention of looking into it
now that's just silly... there woud be lots of music without the RIAA.
a) record labels (large and small) would still exist, they just wouldn't have a huge lobbying group. (this might even lead to competition between the labels, heaven forbid)
and
b) there are millions of musicians that operate outside of the RIAA umbrella. They would all still be creating music (both good and bad just like the RIAA controls). It just might make music a bit more regional without big money pushing worldwide distribution but it would in no way limit the total amount of recorded music
A nice solution to that is the jablicator package for Debian.
Let's say I have a system set up the way I want. I create a jablicator package (which is an empty package that requires all your currently installed packages) and add that machine to the sources.list on the destination machine. Then I run
apt-get install jablicator-package-name
and watch the machine get brought up to date to be a mirror of the previous machine.
The only problem with your option 4 is that if you treat it like a toolbar you either have to always have the space reserved for it (as in option 2, just not visable), or do option 1 (which is the same way it is done for things like the personal toolbar, the height of the page is reflowed when you turn that on or off), or the sidebar(once again reflowed).
So option 1 is even consistent with behaviour of the toolbars. I can see what you're saying, and why you would like it to behave different, but unfortunately the only way i can see is that you either have autohide or you don't. Most people seem to prefer autohiding.
The way I look at it is, if you have a scroll bar that autohides, then it's appearance by nature must become part of the content. Otherwise where does it go? Without the scrollbar 100% may be 480px, but the scrollbar itself appears and takes up space so now you've got 475px of 'content space' remaining hence it is part of the content. The only way around that would be to eliminate the autohide scrollbar, but I definitely would rather have that then 5 extra pixels
The point I think you're missing is that MS's main competition is not Linux itself as an operating system but "free software" as a movement and more importantly the GPL. So if MS's main competition comes from the GPL and RAND licensing is incompatible with the GPL then how exactly does RAND licensing help the competition against the convicted monopoly?
Is it me or do most OS reviews these days seem to miss the mark?
I'm sure installers are nice and all, but when it comes down to it that should be the least significant part of actually *using* an OS.
6 months or 12 months down the road if you ask the RedHat reviewer who raved about the installer, or the Debian reviewer who complained about the installer how their systems were doing, i'm willing to guess that the Debian one is
a) still quite up to date and b) hasn't had any stability problems at all.
Whereas the other one
a) May have been re-installed with a newer release and b) May be experiencing dependancy hell.
Taking all this into consideration it seems absolutely ridiculus how much attention is paid to the installers during a review. Besides what percentage of Windows users have actually installed their own OS? So if typical end users are not the ones installing it, what does it matter what the installer is like?
I'd like to see reviews based on how well the configured machine operates from the day after the install on. I think that's far more telling about the quality of the product than judging it on the installer itself.
The debian installer is not hard or bad, it's just... different.
When I first started using Debian I had set it up 3 times before I figured out how I wanted to run the installer.
Note the I say how *I* wanted to run the installer.
The installer has the flexibility to run in many ways for many different purposes. Once I found the way I liked to run it, it was a breeze. I've set up a lot of systems just like that one since then without a single hitch and very quickly at that.
However, it's also important to note, that since i've set up these machines (and excluding the initial 3 times through the installer) i've NEVER had to reinstall any of them.
So while it might take a couple of hours to get your head around the Debian installer, it still beats having to reinstall everytime a new release comes out like most other distros...
i'm sure other people will point this out as well but Debian has this down easier than Windows/Mac/anything else out there. Found a security hole that needs patching? simple. 'apt-get update' (to update the list of available packages) followed by 'apt-get upgrade' and watch the new packages come in....
Now i'll be the first to admit that Debian's not the easiest to setup initially, but trust me, it's well worth it in the long run.
Actually I'd be careful about recommending that patch.
A friend of mine was working on a customers' comptuer and installed that patch (since he was installing all available patches and fixes to make sure the machine was up to date). Of course after installing that patch the machine would not shutdown properly. However, it wasn't having this problem BEFORE the patch was installed.
So after installing a patch that was supposed to fix that problem it actually caused that problem. After hours upon hours of reasearch, updating, etc, the only way to get it to shutdown properly again was to wipe it, reinstall and NOT install that patch... Strange but true...
ok, so no distribution before the LSB was created was a linux distribution? That's just silly. In your mind I guess Linux is under a year old? As a happy Debian user i'm grateful to be using a *Linux Distribution* that avoids the hell that is rpm... and yes it *IS* a Linux Distribution.
How about Gentoo? I guess they don't qualify either, or Slackware? C'mon, those are two other high quality distributions that don't use rpms.
There's nothing wrong with compiling from source. That's what it's there for. However, I do agree if you've stuck with using packges up until now then there's no reason to change, but c'mon, there's more to linux than just the kernel true, but LSB or no, rpm's are not a requirement of Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Web design is not being a code monkey and churning out a site that the client has designed.
Web design is "design". That's why they hire you.
You don't hire an interior designer and give them the design. You tell them the general idea of what you're looking for and they advise you on how to best acheive your goals.
It's the same in web design. The customer shouldn't be saying, "I want this flashy animation here, and cool menus there", but instead, "we want to focus on this product and how to grab the customers attention...".
After that it's up to the *designer* to use his/her *design* skills to successfully acheive that (subject to client approval of course).
If the client is just looking for a code monkey to churn out their design they should hire some kid who doesn't know any better. cheaper and you get the design you want. of course odds are you won't get the results you want out of your site but i guess it's a matter of what's more important; your design or the results you get from it?
Web design has a lot more to do with consultancy and design than with simply writing code
no i think his point is more to this:
say you have a hammer, wrench, and saw on the shelf in that order.
you come in one day to find the they are now in the order of: saw, hammer, wrench.
can you still find the hammer? or will you grab the saw and start wailing away on nails?
"Basics should be teached at school"
;)
Yeah, basic things. Like english
Yes, because DOS was obviously easier than Windows XP and could do so much more (like burn cds, watch movies, connect to the internet, etc) oh wait...
These users might have at least seen their control panel and maybe, just maybe, knows how to use add/remove programs. And if they can use windows update then the battle is half won. I hardly think that's asking too much.
The way you talk you would expect no one ever learned how to use a remote control for their television. A basic understanding comes eventually. Education, even if not formal, is inevitable.
sure. so somewhere, somehow down the line people need to be educated. you can't make all computers simple point and click and eliminate the need for education. let's face it, it's not a toaster or a microwave and never will be that simple.
So the person who sets up the 911 network has to be educated but wouldn't it be better if *all* people acheived some level of reasonable knowledge so that the problem could be avoided entirely?
It's definitely more secure in the sense that if you *are* up to date on all your linux updates and all your MS updates your MS box is still vulnerable to *known* exploits. Just look at the long list of unpatched IE exploits. This is much less the case with Linux
Well when the next Slammer type worm takes out 911 services and causes loss of life because people weren't educated enough about what software they were running and how to apply patches what will you say then?
Isn't that how pop stars are created? ;)
Perhaps that's because nothing can attempt to replace them at the moment?
If the RIAA ceased to or never existed that doesn't mean that something else better couldn't come along
The internet seems to be to be a great avenue for discovering bands outside of your local scope. Without the RIAA we might see that avenue explored a little further since it's obvious they have no intention of looking into it
now that's just silly... there woud be lots of music without the RIAA.
a) record labels (large and small) would still exist, they just wouldn't have a huge lobbying group. (this might even lead to competition between the labels, heaven forbid)
and
b) there are millions of musicians that operate outside of the RIAA umbrella. They would all still be creating music (both good and bad just like the RIAA controls). It just might make music a bit more regional without big money pushing worldwide distribution but it would in no way limit the total amount of recorded music
A nice solution to that is the jablicator package for Debian.
Let's say I have a system set up the way I want. I create a jablicator package (which is an empty package that requires all your currently installed packages) and add that machine to the sources.list on the destination machine. Then I run
apt-get install jablicator-package-name
and watch the machine get brought up to date to be a mirror of the previous machine.
Rebooting for a patch?!?!?!? What the hell kind of lunacy is that!?!?!?!
;)
If it's not the kernel you don't reboot
You've got to be kidding me. You've never used the W3C validator? I couldn't live without that thing...
http://validator.w3.org
Because you asked for it....
Linux Coffee HOWTO
The only problem with your option 4 is that if you treat it like a toolbar you either have to always have the space reserved for it (as in option 2, just not visable), or do option 1 (which is the same way it is done for things like the personal toolbar, the height of the page is reflowed when you turn that on or off), or the sidebar(once again reflowed).
So option 1 is even consistent with behaviour of the toolbars. I can see what you're saying, and why you would like it to behave different, but unfortunately the only way i can see is that you either have autohide or you don't. Most people seem to prefer autohiding.
The way I look at it is, if you have a scroll bar that autohides, then it's appearance by nature must become part of the content. Otherwise where does it go? Without the scrollbar 100% may be 480px, but the scrollbar itself appears and takes up space so now you've got 475px of 'content space' remaining hence it is part of the content. The only way around that would be to eliminate the autohide scrollbar, but I definitely would rather have that then 5 extra pixels
The point I think you're missing is that MS's main competition is not Linux itself as an operating system but "free software" as a movement and more importantly the GPL. So if MS's main competition comes from the GPL and RAND licensing is incompatible with the GPL then how exactly does RAND licensing help the competition against the convicted monopoly?
Is it me or do most OS reviews these days seem to miss the mark?
I'm sure installers are nice and all, but when it comes down to it that should be the least significant part of actually *using* an OS.
6 months or 12 months down the road if you ask the RedHat reviewer who raved about the installer, or the Debian reviewer who complained about the installer how their systems were doing, i'm willing to guess that the Debian one is
a) still quite up to date and
b) hasn't had any stability problems at all.
Whereas the other one
a) May have been re-installed with a newer release and
b) May be experiencing dependancy hell.
Taking all this into consideration it seems absolutely ridiculus how much attention is paid to the installers during a review. Besides what percentage of Windows users have actually installed their own OS? So if typical end users are not the ones installing it, what does it matter what the installer is like?
I'd like to see reviews based on how well the configured machine operates from the day after the install on. I think that's far more telling about the quality of the product than judging it on the installer itself.
The debian installer is not hard or bad, it's just... different.
When I first started using Debian I had set it up 3 times before I figured out how I wanted to run the installer.
Note the I say how *I* wanted to run the installer.
The installer has the flexibility to run in many ways for many different purposes. Once I found the way I liked to run it, it was a breeze. I've set up a lot of systems just like that one since then without a single hitch and very quickly at that.
However, it's also important to note, that since i've set up these machines (and excluding the initial 3 times through the installer) i've NEVER had to reinstall any
of them.
So while it might take a couple of hours to get your head around the Debian installer, it still beats having to reinstall everytime a new release comes out like most other distros...
i'm sure other people will point this out as well but Debian has this down easier than Windows/Mac/anything else out there. Found a security hole that needs patching? simple. 'apt-get update' (to update the list of available packages) followed by 'apt-get upgrade' and watch the new packages come in....
Now i'll be the first to admit that Debian's not the easiest to setup initially, but trust me, it's well worth it in the long run.
it saddens me to say that i've seen "3-5 years experience windows 2000 required..." *shakes head*
Have you ever seen the size of a service pack???? Man, those things are definately replacing the entire OS. 150 megs of fixes... right...
Actually I'd be careful about recommending that patch.
A friend of mine was working on a customers' comptuer and installed that patch (since he was installing all available patches and fixes to make sure the machine was up to date). Of course after installing that patch the machine would not shutdown properly. However, it wasn't having this problem BEFORE the patch was installed.
So after installing a patch that was supposed to fix that problem it actually caused that problem. After hours upon hours of reasearch, updating, etc, the only way to get it to shutdown properly again was to wipe it, reinstall and NOT install that patch... Strange but true...
ok, so no distribution before the LSB was created was a linux distribution? That's just silly. In your mind I guess Linux is under a year old? As a happy Debian user i'm grateful to be using a *Linux Distribution* that avoids the hell that is rpm... and yes it *IS* a Linux Distribution.
How about Gentoo? I guess they don't qualify either, or Slackware? C'mon, those are two other high quality distributions that don't use rpms.
There's nothing wrong with compiling from source. That's what it's there for. However, I do agree if you've stuck with using packges up until now then there's no reason to change, but c'mon, there's more to linux than just the kernel true, but LSB or no, rpm's are not a requirement of Linux.