Sorry. I meant font smoothing where I wrote true type fonts - hence the blocky fonts - basically anything above 14pt is not of production quality unless you've got font smoothing (anti-aliasing).
Basically anything that gets you out of X, which is exceptionally primitive, lacking as it does alpha blending, true type fonts, etc., and being useful only for people running software over a network.
I'm not trying to be rude, but if you're going to do graphic design work, you should use a graphics design tool - in other words not X, which is unsuitable - how could you present as work those ugly blocky fonts?
If you want to do anything I recommend a good set of tools - if you're doing cross-country driving I'd recommend a 4 by 4 vehicle - to use a cadillac would be silly, and if you're going to do graphic design work you should use a graphic designer's tool - a Macintosh or Windows.
No it shouldn't. The point was that it was wrong to tax free software - it's like taxing tap water just because Evian is free, but in any case if it was right, they shouldn't tax it at the MS Office rate because it's not as good.
Obviously this is ridiculous, and the tax office don't understand the situation:
the software is free, and no benefit is directly conferred (i.e. it's always free, so there's no benefit) - it is not analagous to a 'free' company car or whatever
the valuations are incorrect: Star Office is not as good as MS Office (this is not flamebait, this is simple statement of the facts); similarly Windows is in many ways more valuable than Linux (from a management perspective; in addition, the product is more advanced too - IIS, for example, since it is integrated into the NT kernel, is faster than Apache).
He's not stupid. Basically he's trotted out some inoffensive lines - he doesn't want to alienate anyone else.
In addition, his views are in his commercial interest - he doesn't want an internet tied up with regulation, because he can't make as much money, and loses his commercial freedom if it is.
Private companies will almost always fight restrictions on their freedom.
I didn't find this surprising at all - even if he is an evil censor (which he's not), he's hardly going to say so (particularly when contributing to a project whose concern is freedom and democracy).
OS X will not be the thing that topples Microsoft.
If Microsoft thought there was any chance of that, they wouldn't have propped Apple up with their development and money (Office suite, IE - both of which keep the Mac alive.)
OS X is very nice, but so is BeOS, and that's not about to topple MS either. Microsoft's genius (or rather IBM's laxness when they made the original IBM PC) is making the software for 30000 different manufacturers - the competition means that 30000 different ads advertise MS-based PCS, whereas only 1 advertises Apple.
Technical superiority has never been the key factor in dominance - just look at Win3.1 vs. Mac, or indeed Dos vs Mac. The technical gap was bigger then - and MS didn't have the vast, vast armies of products tieing people into its OS - server products like Exchange and NT Server, or even a dominant office suite - and it didn't happen then, so it sure as hell ain't going to happen now.
Pentium4 does of course have a place. In x86 servers, for example, Intel chips will hold >90% of the market. This is because AMD chips are not fully compatible with Intel - I have entrusted servers to AMD in the past, and they've been awful. [Perhaps an AMD-compiled version of Windows would be good.]
In terms of corporate, companies will continue to buy Intel for similar reasons (reliability). Pentium 4 will take the place of previous Intel chips as prices fall, as has happened in the past, and Intel will simply stop producing P-III.
The heatsink/motherboard/memory issues are red herrings - these things have happened in the past - slot 1/socket 7, memory chips have changed, etc. It just takes time for these things to happen, but happen it will, and in 2 years will be having a similar conversation about P5, albeit with an even smaller market share for Intel.
In the home, however, Intel is dead - but we knew that already - they're unable to compete on price, and that's all that matters to users, who know nothing of chipsets, heatsinks and processor cores.
My comments on the scripting file got slashcoded:
item name="string" start="\"" end="\(\"\|\n\)" color="string"
should be
item name="string" start="\"" end="\"" color="string"
item name="string" start="'" end="'" color="string"
otherwise your highlighting gets screwed if your strings span multiple lans
[the item tags need html greater and less than signs around]
Windows
Good:
Php Coder - builtin interpreter and function reference
EditPlus Bad:
MPS PHP Editor Indifferent:
HTML-Kit Unix
*strike*code warrior*strike*Latte*strike*Glimmer
- this is the best notepad-style (with tabs for multiple files) Unix text editor - extensible, with adjustable background images, etc., scriptable in Python
[note the syntax highlighting file is suboptimal -
should be
Crossplatform
Emacs
Vim (PHP highlighting not very good)
But basically my personal recommendations:
syntax highlighting good, all else redundant
So choose the best editor out there; there's not much else you can do with PHP - it's not WYSIWYG suitable, and the functions are so high level, things *like* dialog editors are redundant. As for ftp, I strongly recommend that if you're on Unix, you install your system's PHP & Apache packages, and on Windows install PHP Triad, an integrated MySQL/PHP/Apache installer. This way you don't have to worry about FTP till you're finished [just a warning: always make sure your local PHP is *older* (or the same) as the one on the web server - v3, apart from having fewer functions, also has a lot of weird and undocumented bugs and misfeatures - e.g., you get errors if you call something $file (or class file); in v4 you can instantiate
class classname {
// No constructor
}
with $object=new classname();
but v3 only allows brackets when the class has a constructor.
Here's how I work:
editor w/syntax highlighting, editing files direct - so much nicer than FTP, and without the FTP problems
browser window set to PHP manual (locally, for speed)
browser set to view PHP pages (Opera is good for this purpose because of its MDI (hint: use 4 and 5 to tab between windows), which generally sucks, but is good in this case cos you don't have to open lots of windows)
I don't think it's right to simply mod a comment as flamebait because it doesn't agree with your worldview. Linux users would benefit from listening to what is wrong with Linux and acting upon it, rather than simply burying their head in the sand in the face of overwhelming evidence that Linux is not as easy to use as Windows.
I mean really - do you think an AOL user could use Linux? No
Could they use Windows? Yes.
You turn it on, you save your files, you browse the net.
Linux requires a level of understanding about computers - Windows does not. With Windows you just work, but with Linux you've got to understand concepts - file permissions, root, etc.
Imagine this:
non-computer-using person with no science/computing background goes into Walmart and buys modem.
Takes home.
Plugs modem in. Attaches modem to computer.
Turns on machine.
Windows detects modem automatically.
User can now browse AOL.
What I don't understand is how Linux is so hard to use. I mean Windows 3.0 is easier, and had *far less* development on its GUI than Linux.
1. I guess it just shows why one company should make the whole OS (or at least integrate other people's work).
2. Linux tries to work over major problems - X, which from a UI point of view is slow and primitive, Unix security models, which are useless for home users - I mean just imagine the first user with Linux - they won't have a clue about not being able to write different directories, never mind chmod and file permissions.
The fact is that Linux will *never* be as easy to use as Windows - no integrated configuration, caused by the many different companies working on it, Unix-style rules about devices (permissions to play mp3s anyone?), different toolkits and widgets - most users can't even manage to learn one, no cross-application interaction - e.g., can't cut and paste between two different types of application. No support for advanced hardware (e.g., 3d acceleration - in the cases where there are drivers, the Linux distros snootily refuse to use them because they're not open source - as if the company should give away its secrets.
The fact is that Linux/Unix will never get more than 10% desktop share - most people do not define themselves as computer users, but rather as people who happen to use computers. For these people all the 'nerd' advantages of Linux do not exist, and so they will use Windows.
Perhaps Linux has a role on crippled one-function boxes (web tv, etc.), but as a multi-function computer Windows will continue to reign in its fully integrated existence.
Companies are starting to recognize this, and are getting out; however, companies like Eazel, Helixcode, the Kompany, etc., still delude themselves that they can make money - Eazel by charging for services no-one will use, Helixcode by no means, and the Kompany by giving most of its software away (no company can afford to give most of its software away).
The fact that Corel is so badly fucked is due to Linux. It just happens that Corel used to work under realworld principles of making money, whereas the opensource companies have been fortunate enough to have opensource rules, where you'll make money for services about 10 years in the future, and now that it is losing money, it is judged by those principles; Corel should get out now before it gets screwed any more.
Corel are selling Linux because Linux is not suitable for desktop use. Let me give my experiences - I have been reading all about Linux and how great it is and how bad Windows 9x/NT/2000 is. Well I use both. I use Windows when I want to get things done, regardless of the GPF's Blue Screens, of Illegal Operations I experience. I just use Linux to play and dream of the day when it fully comes of desktop age.
Face it Linux is not ready for prime time. Why, because I can't sit my mother in front of a Linux box and expect for her to learn it and to like it. Truth be known (and you have all experienced the same) I have problems with her sitting in front of Windows, just like I have problems with 80% of the users that I support.
Four main (Bullshit) reasons for using Linux over Windows 9x/NT/2000:
1) Linux is free. Most users of Windows are pirates. A friend or family member has bootlegged a copy for them. Besides most you bought your distributions (That's not free). So Linux being free is not a good reason.
2) You get the source code of the OS. So what, I have never looked at the source. I never plan on looking at the source. So having access to the source is not a good argument.
3) Linux is stable. So is DOS. The Linux GUI is no stable. Software packages crash all the time. Stability is not a good argument either.
4) Linux is customizable. Really?!. Most users, if given the opportunity, other than changing the background would never customize Windows or any OS. It's too much work. That's not a good argument either. It's only a choice.
So why are we people using Linux? Because Linux is Cool; and they are elite and like doing things the hard way - it's like people reading advanced philosophy it will never appeal to most people, and 'desktop philosophy' won't have mass appeal.
I have a problem with the following:
Lack of Productivity Software. (Yes, I like Word and Outlook).
Lack of Fonts.
Lack of. Popular games.
Lack of Drive support.
And no easy way of doing things.
In addition, almost all of the Mozilla code is written by Netscape employees. Some companies, like IBM, have worked on specific areas (e.g., bidi, SVG).
But the amateur involvement is limited mainly to bug submissions - the number of amateurs who have written any significant amount of C++ code for the project is literally only a handful.
To all intents and purposes Mozilla *is* Netscape. Netscape provides Mozilla's life blood, and Mozilla was created by Netscape to build its browser.
This is not like someone taking KDE and plastering it with adverts. All Netscape has done is use the browser it created in its browser.
Furthermore, the people on Slashdot (e.g., Michael) who say that one should just use MSIE and that Netscape are being exploitative are missing the point.
Let me explain:
C++ engineers are not free. Software does not build itsself.
Companies have to make money and Netscape is hardly wrong in trying to make some money.
The assertions in the article are untrue. Microsoft makes as your homepage its money-making portal MSN. Microsoft puts links to hotmail, its commercial venture.
Microsoft puts paid for links from companies like the New Scientist in your bookmarks menus.
Microsoft charges companies to be in its channels.
Internet Explorer is massively cross-subsidised by Microsoft, and its hundreds of developers (seriously: check out help/about in ie 5.5).
Internet Explorer does not have to make money - Microsoft have other things that do that. Microsoft created Internet Explorer because it wanted to control the internet, and to this end paid Apple to make it its default browser.
It is wrong to say that Netscape has no right to make any money simply because Microsoft tried (and succeeded mostly, although Netscape's certainly helped it along) to kill Netscape, and did so by creating a product that lost it lots of money, and then to say that no company has any right to make money on web browsers simply because Microsoft doesn't because it has its own, more nefarious ends.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry. I meant font smoothing where I wrote true type fonts - hence the blocky fonts - basically anything above 14pt is not of production quality unless you've got font smoothing (anti-aliasing).
> being useful only for people running software over a network.
change that to 'being most suitable for' - as explained, you can use an inappropriate tool, but it's not the best way to do things.
Try:
vmware
Plex86
Basilisk
Basically anything that gets you out of X, which is exceptionally primitive, lacking as it does alpha blending, true type fonts, etc., and being useful only for people running software over a network.
I'm not trying to be rude, but if you're going to do graphic design work, you should use a graphics design tool - in other words not X, which is unsuitable - how could you present as work those ugly blocky fonts?
If you want to do anything I recommend a good set of tools - if you're doing cross-country driving I'd recommend a 4 by 4 vehicle - to use a cadillac would be silly, and if you're going to do graphic design work you should use a graphic designer's tool - a Macintosh or Windows.
No it shouldn't. The point was that it was wrong to tax free software - it's like taxing tap water just because Evian is free, but in any case if it was right, they shouldn't tax it at the MS Office rate because it's not as good.
Obviously this is ridiculous, and the tax office don't understand the situation:
the software is free, and no benefit is directly conferred (i.e. it's always free, so there's no benefit) - it is not analagous to a 'free' company car or whatever
the valuations are incorrect: Star Office is not as good as MS Office (this is not flamebait, this is simple statement of the facts); similarly Windows is in many ways more valuable than Linux (from a management perspective; in addition, the product is more advanced too - IIS, for example, since it is integrated into the NT kernel, is faster than Apache).
You might like to read the original article (in Polish) http://www.computerworld.pl/wiadomosci/archiwum/3/ 1/3146.asp, plus the kuro5hin story that this story was taken from originally.
Not really.
He's not stupid. Basically he's trotted out some inoffensive lines - he doesn't want to alienate anyone else.
In addition, his views are in his commercial interest - he doesn't want an internet tied up with regulation, because he can't make as much money, and loses his commercial freedom if it is.
Private companies will almost always fight restrictions on their freedom.
I didn't find this surprising at all - even if he is an evil censor (which he's not), he's hardly going to say so (particularly when contributing to a project whose concern is freedom and democracy).
OS X will not be the thing that topples Microsoft.
If Microsoft thought there was any chance of that, they wouldn't have propped Apple up with their development and money (Office suite, IE - both of which keep the Mac alive.)
OS X is very nice, but so is BeOS, and that's not about to topple MS either. Microsoft's genius (or rather IBM's laxness when they made the original IBM PC) is making the software for 30000 different manufacturers - the competition means that 30000 different ads advertise MS-based PCS, whereas only 1 advertises Apple.
Technical superiority has never been the key factor in dominance - just look at Win3.1 vs. Mac, or indeed Dos vs Mac. The technical gap was bigger then - and MS didn't have the vast, vast armies of products tieing people into its OS - server products like Exchange and NT Server, or even a dominant office suite - and it didn't happen then, so it sure as hell ain't going to happen now.
In the home people by $699 pcs. That means AMD.
Pentium4 does of course have a place. In x86 servers, for example, Intel chips will hold >90% of the market. This is because AMD chips are not fully compatible with Intel - I have entrusted servers to AMD in the past, and they've been awful. [Perhaps an AMD-compiled version of Windows would be good.]
In terms of corporate, companies will continue to buy Intel for similar reasons (reliability). Pentium 4 will take the place of previous Intel chips as prices fall, as has happened in the past, and Intel will simply stop producing P-III.
The heatsink/motherboard/memory issues are red herrings - these things have happened in the past - slot 1/socket 7, memory chips have changed, etc. It just takes time for these things to happen, but happen it will, and in 2 years will be having a similar conversation about P5, albeit with an even smaller market share for Intel.
In the home, however, Intel is dead - but we knew that already - they're unable to compete on price, and that's all that matters to users, who know nothing of chipsets, heatsinks and processor cores.
Oops:
PHP Triad
Vim
Emacs
My comments on the scripting file got slashcoded:
item name="string" start="\"" end="\(\"\|\n\)" color="string"
should be
item name="string" start="\"" end="\"" color="string"
item name="string" start="'" end="'" color="string"
otherwise your highlighting gets screwed if your strings span multiple lans
[the item tags need html greater and less than signs around]
He's running vi rather than vim - he's probably installed only vim-minimal and not vim-enhanced.
Start it as vim.
Windows
Good:
Php Coder - builtin interpreter and function reference
EditPlus
Bad:
MPS PHP Editor
Indifferent:
HTML-Kit
Unix
*strike*code warrior*strike*Latte*strike*Glimmer
- this is the best notepad-style (with tabs for multiple files) Unix text editor - extensible, with adjustable background images, etc., scriptable in Python
[note the syntax highlighting file is suboptimal -
should be
Crossplatform
Emacs
Vim (PHP highlighting not very good)
But basically my personal recommendations:
syntax highlighting good, all else redundant
So choose the best editor out there; there's not much else you can do with PHP - it's not WYSIWYG suitable, and the functions are so high level, things *like* dialog editors are redundant. As for ftp, I strongly recommend that if you're on Unix, you install your system's PHP & Apache packages, and on Windows install PHP Triad, an integrated MySQL/PHP/Apache installer. This way you don't have to worry about FTP till you're finished [just a warning: always make sure your local PHP is *older* (or the same) as the one on the web server - v3, apart from having fewer functions, also has a lot of weird and undocumented bugs and misfeatures - e.g., you get errors if you call something $file (or class file); in v4 you can instantiate
class classname {
// No constructor
}
with $object=new classname();
but v3 only allows brackets when the class has a constructor.
Here's how I work:
editor w/syntax highlighting, editing files direct - so much nicer than FTP, and without the FTP problems
browser window set to PHP manual (locally, for speed)
browser set to view PHP pages (Opera is good for this purpose because of its MDI (hint: use 4 and 5 to tab between windows), which generally sucks, but is good in this case cos you don't have to open lots of windows)
I don't think it's right to simply mod a comment as flamebait because it doesn't agree with your worldview. Linux users would benefit from listening to what is wrong with Linux and acting upon it, rather than simply burying their head in the sand in the face of overwhelming evidence that Linux is not as easy to use as Windows.
I mean really - do you think an AOL user could use Linux? No
Could they use Windows? Yes.
You turn it on, you save your files, you browse the net.
Linux requires a level of understanding about computers - Windows does not. With Windows you just work, but with Linux you've got to understand concepts - file permissions, root, etc.
Imagine this:
non-computer-using person with no science/computing background goes into Walmart and buys modem.
Takes home.
Plugs modem in. Attaches modem to computer.
Turns on machine.
Windows detects modem automatically.
User can now browse AOL.
Do you think they could do this under Linux?
What I don't understand is how Linux is so hard to use. I mean Windows 3.0 is easier, and had *far less* development on its GUI than Linux.
1. I guess it just shows why one company should make the whole OS (or at least integrate other people's work).
2. Linux tries to work over major problems - X, which from a UI point of view is slow and primitive, Unix security models, which are useless for home users - I mean just imagine the first user with Linux - they won't have a clue about not being able to write different directories, never mind chmod and file permissions.
The fact is that Linux will *never* be as easy to use as Windows - no integrated configuration, caused by the many different companies working on it, Unix-style rules about devices (permissions to play mp3s anyone?), different toolkits and widgets - most users can't even manage to learn one, no cross-application interaction - e.g., can't cut and paste between two different types of application. No support for advanced hardware (e.g., 3d acceleration - in the cases where there are drivers, the Linux distros snootily refuse to use them because they're not open source - as if the company should give away its secrets.
The fact is that Linux/Unix will never get more than 10% desktop share - most people do not define themselves as computer users, but rather as people who happen to use computers. For these people all the 'nerd' advantages of Linux do not exist, and so they will use Windows.
Perhaps Linux has a role on crippled one-function boxes (web tv, etc.), but as a multi-function computer Windows will continue to reign in its fully integrated existence.
Companies are starting to recognize this, and are getting out; however, companies like Eazel, Helixcode, the Kompany, etc., still delude themselves that they can make money - Eazel by charging for services no-one will use, Helixcode by no means, and the Kompany by giving most of its software away (no company can afford to give most of its software away).
The fact that Corel is so badly fucked is due to Linux. It just happens that Corel used to work under realworld principles of making money, whereas the opensource companies have been fortunate enough to have opensource rules, where you'll make money for services about 10 years in the future, and now that it is losing money, it is judged by those principles; Corel should get out now before it gets screwed any more.
Corel are selling Linux because Linux is not suitable for desktop use. Let me give my experiences - I have been reading all about Linux and how great it is and how bad Windows 9x/NT/2000 is. Well I use both. I use Windows when I want to get things done, regardless of the GPF's Blue Screens, of Illegal Operations I experience. I just use Linux to play and dream of the day when it fully comes of desktop age.
Face it Linux is not ready for prime time. Why, because I can't sit my mother in front of a Linux box and expect for her to learn it and to like it. Truth be known (and you have all experienced the same) I have problems with her sitting in front of Windows, just like I have problems with 80% of the users that I support.
Four main (Bullshit) reasons for using Linux over Windows 9x/NT/2000:
1) Linux is free. Most users of Windows are pirates. A friend or family member has bootlegged a copy for them. Besides most you bought your distributions (That's not free). So Linux being free is not a good reason.
2) You get the source code of the OS. So what, I have never looked at the source. I never plan on looking at the source. So having access to the source is not a good argument.
3) Linux is stable. So is DOS. The Linux GUI is no stable. Software packages crash all the time. Stability is not a good argument either.
4) Linux is customizable. Really?!. Most users, if given the opportunity, other than changing the background would never customize Windows or any OS. It's too much work. That's not a good argument either. It's only a choice.
So why are we people using Linux? Because Linux is Cool; and they are elite and like doing things the hard way - it's like people reading advanced philosophy it will never appeal to most people, and 'desktop philosophy' won't have mass appeal.
I have a problem with the following:
Lack of Productivity Software. (Yes, I like Word and Outlook).
Lack of Fonts.
Lack of. Popular games.
Lack of Drive support.
And no easy way of doing things.
Let me explain:
Mozilla.org has twelve staff. These people are all, or almost all, paid by Netscape.
For example, Brendan Eich is the inventor of JavaScript and is a Mozilla employee paid by Netscape.
The Mozilla code is strictly controlled by Netscape: all code must be checked in by a Netscape engineer.
In addition, almost all of the Mozilla code is written by Netscape employees. Some companies, like IBM, have worked on specific areas (e.g., bidi, SVG).
But the amateur involvement is limited mainly to bug submissions - the number of amateurs who have written any significant amount of C++ code for the project is literally only a handful.
To all intents and purposes Mozilla *is* Netscape. Netscape provides Mozilla's life blood, and Mozilla was created by Netscape to build its browser.
This is not like someone taking KDE and plastering it with adverts. All Netscape has done is use the browser it created in its browser.
Furthermore, the people on Slashdot (e.g., Michael) who say that one should just use MSIE and that Netscape are being exploitative are missing the point.
Let me explain:
C++ engineers are not free. Software does not build itsself.
Companies have to make money and Netscape is hardly wrong in trying to make some money.
The assertions in the article are untrue. Microsoft makes as your homepage its money-making portal MSN. Microsoft puts links to hotmail, its commercial venture.
Microsoft puts paid for links from companies like the New Scientist in your bookmarks menus.
Microsoft charges companies to be in its channels.
Internet Explorer is massively cross-subsidised by Microsoft, and its hundreds of developers (seriously: check out help/about in ie 5.5).
Internet Explorer does not have to make money - Microsoft have other things that do that. Microsoft created Internet Explorer because it wanted to control the internet, and to this end paid Apple to make it its default browser.
It is wrong to say that Netscape has no right to make any money simply because Microsoft tried (and succeeded mostly, although Netscape's certainly helped it along) to kill Netscape, and did so by creating a product that lost it lots of money, and then to say that no company has any right to make money on web browsers simply because Microsoft doesn't because it has its own, more nefarious ends.
1. Technical. Skins from a particular Mozilla milestones won't work with newer/older milestones either.
2. Edit them by hand (it's a zipped file that jar), or download some Mozilla themese.
The 'Proxy Settings' button might come in handy. (On the 'select download location page'.)
Suggestion: close the window. It's not too hard.
IE did this too - it used to have a cool about:mozilla page, but now it just brings up a blue screen (Blue screen of death?).
No, seamonkey.
screen shot - quite convincing too.
actual page