The thing is that Gnome is configurable, just not in the control center, but in Gconf. KDE puts all the configure options in one place, but in practice they have similar extensibility in the the backend.
90% of users are intimidated by 1000 options. They just want to increase their font size. KDE has far too many options in their control app.
Gnome is smarter than KDE in this regard. KDE should have a simple control panel by default (for the 90% of users) and an advanced control panel without menu links that you have to run by command line.
The intended audience don't read ebooks, they read paper books. Print quality is a must.
ASCII doesn't have formatting. The only people who would suggest ASCII are programmers who don't understand their audience.
HTML doesn't look good in print (yes yes, there's print CSS, but the spec allows too many variances to for print-quality rendering)
Arguing about output formats is missing the point. You don't write a book in HTML or ASCII. You write it in Docbook or LyX and then from this high-level format you have produce many lower-level formats such as HTML or ASCII or VoiceXML or XHTML 2 or E-book/PDF (via XSL-FO). Ask them what format they want it in and produce it on the fly for all I care - it's no hassle.
I generally agree with you. My point about the upgrade stub was that it doesn't obey standards. (standards are an abstract concept - that it works in browsers is beside the point when one is talking about compliance)
Why would I want to avoid hurting Netscape 4? I want to encourage people to upgrade to something newer and (one hopes) more standards-compliant.
Good grief. I thought that sort of attitude died out with Linux Zealotry;)
It would be nice if every user was able to choose their browser, but to most people installing software is as foreign as installing an operating system. People use IE because it ships with their desktop - not because they've evaluated all the options. There are numerous technical reasons why a new browser isn't suitable.
The "go upgrade" stub treats the page like a pick-a-path adventure book, making CSS a requirement to reveal or hide the correct elements so the page exposes the correct parts to the correct people. A plain text browser, or a browser without CSS, won't get a logical structure - they'll see an upgrade message that doesn't apply to them.
Standards-wise, browsers (such as text-only) are under no obligation to use CSS. The upgrade stub hiding itself with CSS muddies the separation of content from style.
The standard's based approach would be to inform all users, regardless of whether they have CSS.
I don't have to bend over backwards. I put positioning relating CSS in it's own sheet and @import it. This takes a few more minutes. It's about doing a proper job.
I understand your point of view for the private sector who wants to balance audience and extra cost, but for those who want the widest audience or the government sector who have to reach the widest audience it's not an option.
If you're a programmer and you can't use @import to avoid hurting Netscape 4 then you're an idiot. If you're saying that CSS should be required to use a site then you're an idiot. Agreed?
WebStandards.org use CSS to hide an upgrade message and break standards by doing so. If you want to embrace standards listen to the w3c - not the shallow organisation that is webstandards.org.
... and.mono deviates from that,.mono is no longer considered.net compatible.
No, it only loses full compatibility with that particular web control, and not.NET itself. Even so, whether a control is compatible is in it's functionality - and as there are Javascript techniques to use Standardised DOM where possible while falling back on MSDOM where not Mono could be functionally the same.
Learn how to write my own.net webcontrols is your answer!? By default MS doesn't specify a charset, so it's no wonder that UTF-8 fails in N4. UTF-8 support in N4 is poor - but it works when you hold N4's hand along the way. N4's support isn't robust like IE4 - but that doesn't mean that breaking it wasn't avoidable if they had bothered.
One Microsoft product has defaults that make it easier to use other Microsoft products. Isn't that just bizarre!?!?
Re:The best socialism...
on
Corporate KDE
·
· Score: 1
Then you're unlike most people, and most governments, who have to make processes open regardless of efficiency as they're spending other people's money.
Open Source is the only government-like software model.
I would be using GStreamer myself, but they don't have anything available for Mandrake. They point users to Mandrake cooker!... sometimes I cry for OSS usability.
When given proper maintenance nuclear power has been safe for the last 10-20 years. I mean, at some point nuclear power will be OK, and I think we understand enough now to manage it.
However NZ doesn't need the power (ignore the newspaper stories today), we've got hydro damns running far below capacity and power plants shut-down because there isn't the demand.
Yeah, I agree, Mozilla is great. I still have problems with the textboxes sometimes though (sometimes on slashdot I can't type into this box and have to refresh the page - it occurs more often in Phoenix), and drop down menus are easy to overload Mozilla with (drop down the file menu and run your mouse back and forth, you'll see the sluggish behaviour).
Having their own toolkit was the only way, but that's no real reason for these speed problems:(
It's one thing I hate about Mozilla (why can't they use the native menus and widgets?)
Because they wouldn't be able to comply with CSS.
Next!
(oh, and if they're rendering the page, and there are standards like XForms and other DHTML/DOM guff coming, then the web is becoming a GUI toolkit of its own, with it's own requirements, and both Loonix and Windows couldn't satisfy the requirements as easily).
Make it easy for everyone people to keep a list of good features (ie, central whiteboard with pen). Google does this.
I don't believe in dual programming, but you can get somewhat of the same effect by requiring that programmers get together and explain their code to everyone several times a week. Just high-level architecture stuff. Each programmer should spend 5 minutes.
When developing software the most dangerous part should come early on. You don't want to pull a Daikatana and not understand what's difficult until late in the development - that's what causes late releases. Because you want to understand what's difficult first you should prototype the application. Hardcode as much as you can, even if it's half-assed, and program the minimal you need to get something that a programmer can recognise as components that address the main problems.
Prototyping is part of "release early, release often". Shame is part of "release early, release often".
Rather than planning technica details start from the interface. If you've got a client, and they're not computer programmers, they won't be able to know their requirements (and whether they're feasible) until they see it in front of them. Get them to draw the interface on paper and how they think it should work - this will help them get in the right mindset about the application. Provide them with prototypes. It's all about trying to jog their memory.
Often people describe the control that Microsoft has over office file formats as one of massive legacy. They have the 90% of the office market and in practice it's impossible not to deal with the format.
Palladium claims to have the freedom to choose whether you want to connect to another palladium machine. This freedom is at an individual level, in the same was I can choose to use Abiword.
If Palladium achieves mass market how will my freedom not to use Palladium be possible? Will it be like having the Freedom to speak Esperanto?
My answer to your dad is that it's a question of business models.
If it stopped at the creation of the MPEG standard he would be right, they wouldn't get anything back from doing it free and open. But I think it's safe to say that MPEG has created an entire industry. The people who created MPEG are known, and the prestige will affect their career. The business model that would allow them to make money would be that they would have the first implementation, and they could compete with others in their understanding of the standard to create the best implementation.Doc Searls did a presentation on 'Infrastructure' which I think is relevent here.
Slashdot Mirror
90% of users are intimidated by 1000 options. They just want to increase their font size. KDE has far too many options in their control app.
Gnome is smarter than KDE in this regard. KDE should have a simple control panel by default (for the 90% of users) and an advanced control panel without menu links that you have to run by command line.
KDE takes configuration too far.
There's the w3c XSL-FO?
The intended audience don't read ebooks, they read paper books. Print quality is a must.
ASCII doesn't have formatting. The only people who would suggest ASCII are programmers who don't understand their audience.
HTML doesn't look good in print (yes yes, there's print CSS, but the spec allows too many variances to for print-quality rendering)
Arguing about output formats is missing the point. You don't write a book in HTML or ASCII. You write it in Docbook or LyX and then from this high-level format you have produce many lower-level formats such as HTML or ASCII or VoiceXML or XHTML 2 or E-book/PDF (via XSL-FO). Ask them what format they want it in and produce it on the fly for all I care - it's no hassle.
Very funny.
I generally agree with you. My point about the upgrade stub was that it doesn't obey standards. (standards are an abstract concept - that it works in browsers is beside the point when one is talking about compliance)
It would be nice if every user was able to choose their browser, but to most people installing software is as foreign as installing an operating system. People use IE because it ships with their desktop - not because they've evaluated all the options. There are numerous technical reasons why a new browser isn't suitable.
The "go upgrade" stub treats the page like a pick-a-path adventure book, making CSS a requirement to reveal or hide the correct elements so the page exposes the correct parts to the correct people. A plain text browser, or a browser without CSS, won't get a logical structure - they'll see an upgrade message that doesn't apply to them.
Standards-wise, browsers (such as text-only) are under no obligation to use CSS. The upgrade stub hiding itself with CSS muddies the separation of content from style.
The standard's based approach would be to inform all users, regardless of whether they have CSS.
I don't have to bend over backwards. I put positioning relating CSS in it's own sheet and @import it. This takes a few more minutes. It's about doing a proper job.
I understand your point of view for the private sector who wants to balance audience and extra cost, but for those who want the widest audience or the government sector who have to reach the widest audience it's not an option.
WebStandards.org use CSS to hide an upgrade message and break standards by doing so. If you want to embrace standards listen to the w3c - not the shallow organisation that is webstandards.org.
So that ASP.NET can be used for government work?
No, it only loses full compatibility with that particular web control, and not
One Microsoft product has defaults that make it easier to use other Microsoft products. Isn't that just bizarre!?!?
Open Source is the only government-like software model.
It's just a tad sad that there isn't a media player for Mandrake with a usable interface :(
I would be using GStreamer myself, but they don't have anything available for Mandrake. They point users to Mandrake cooker! ... sometimes I cry for OSS usability.
However NZ doesn't need the power (ignore the newspaper stories today), we've got hydro damns running far below capacity and power plants shut-down because there isn't the demand.
I'm an New Zealander.
But this does happen (American Government pushes for Enron in India) and I think we'd be naive to think that Microsoft wouldn't be doing this. It's in their benefit.
Having their own toolkit was the only way, but that's no real reason for these speed problems :(
Next!
(oh, and if they're rendering the page, and there are standards like XForms and other DHTML/DOM guff coming, then the web is becoming a GUI toolkit of its own, with it's own requirements, and both Loonix and Windows couldn't satisfy the requirements as easily).
No one likes waiting for their TV to warm up and display a picture.
I've tried it.
I don't believe in dual programming, but you can get somewhat of the same effect by requiring that programmers get together and explain their code to everyone several times a week. Just high-level architecture stuff. Each programmer should spend 5 minutes.
When developing software the most dangerous part should come early on. You don't want to pull a Daikatana and not understand what's difficult until late in the development - that's what causes late releases. Because you want to understand what's difficult first you should prototype the application. Hardcode as much as you can, even if it's half-assed, and program the minimal you need to get something that a programmer can recognise as components that address the main problems.
Prototyping is part of "release early, release often". Shame is part of "release early, release often".
Rather than planning technica details start from the interface. If you've got a client, and they're not computer programmers, they won't be able to know their requirements (and whether they're feasible) until they see it in front of them. Get them to draw the interface on paper and how they think it should work - this will help them get in the right mindset about the application. Provide them with prototypes. It's all about trying to jog their memory.
Price on phases (prototype releases).
Palladium claims to have the freedom to choose whether you want to connect to another palladium machine. This freedom is at an individual level, in the same was I can choose to use Abiword.
If Palladium achieves mass market how will my freedom not to use Palladium be possible? Will it be like having the Freedom to speak Esperanto?
If it stopped at the creation of the MPEG standard he would be right, they wouldn't get anything back from doing it free and open. But I think it's safe to say that MPEG has created an entire industry. The people who created MPEG are known, and the prestige will affect their career. The business model that would allow them to make money would be that they would have the first implementation, and they could compete with others in their understanding of the standard to create the best implementation.Doc Searls did a presentation on 'Infrastructure' which I think is relevent here.
Darn straight. Fucking nazis!
Mozilla had a feature freeze.