Considering the number of people that use IE, many web designers are simply testing their page against IE
I don't think it's just because the larger IE user base that many web site creators test their sites in IE. They simply test against IE because it's their favorite browser and therefore the browser they're developing for.
The reason why they like IE? Because it supports more CSS and DHTML and thatalike and renders their pages like they want them to. Netscape, on the other hand, lacks descent implementations of those things.
But, since Netscape 5 will support almost all recent standards, I think this will change. Many web developers are not against supporting multiple browsers, they're just so bored with the fact that whatever they do, IE and Netscape won't render their CSS code and so on the same way or even close. So they lose interest in Netscape, and primarily focus on IE, leaving Netscape users in the dust. So I think that when a standards-compliant and standards-uptodate Netscape comes, web developers will start to test against Netscape more often, maybe even developing primarily for Netscape 5 and testing in IE.
Web developers are no evil, they just hate tools or programs that simply won't make their work work. On the other hand, Netscape 5 could become the web developers' new best friend.
I also think there is a version of Windows Media Player that runs on linux
Nope, I at least can't find one. Check out the Media Player download page. Maybe you're thinking of the Macintosh version.
Or, on the other hand, you could be be partially right. If I remember it correctly, when MS first created Media Player they said they would make it the de facto player and create versions for multiple OSes, I even think they mentioned Linux, but since then then they seem to have changed their mind, and at some stage renamed it to Windows Media Player. The only port there is to see seem to be the Mac beta port.
I've set up a Linux box for my somewhat computer-illiterate dad. Works perfectly fine, the only thing he uses the computer for is to visit some stock market web sites and online stock trading. And with some neat icons on the desktop for this matter and some first-time guidance he now manages this just fine.
Some weeks ago, however, he saw an URL for a new stock web site in an advertisement. He wanted to try it out, but it neatly krasched Netscape every time. You guessed it, it seemed to be a java applet that krasched Netscape when rendering the page.
I mailed the webmaster, and kindly explained the situation for him, with as many technical details I could, and that it would be wise to make the site accessible for non-Windows users too. The day after, I got a kind response from the site manager saying that he was sorry for any inconvinience and that he would let the web site developers look into it.
Then I forgot about the whole thing, until some weeks later, when I played around with my dad's computer again. This time the site (and the applet) worked. The site was still a pain to read (small, fixed font) but it would at least load.
So I guess that the best way to treat "incompatible" sites is just emailing the webmasters and kindly explaining the situation. Don't be afraid of explaining exactly what makes the site incompatible, since most web developers don't test the sites on every platform. They test it in IE and maybe Netscape on Windows in different resolutions and that's it. Maybe, if they're serious, they also test it on Macs. Linux / BeOS / UNIX? Naeeee... never heard of it. You mean we actually have site visitors that uses those systems? You've got to be kidding.
Ok, there are developers that test their work under whatever browser/platform possible. But those are few. It is a pain in the *ss to test web sites extensively - so I don't blame the developers for not wanting to test everything. But if they start getting attention from some visitors, or preferrably the company that ordered the web site, saying "hey, we've got some mail recently from visitors saying they could not access the site, what's up?" things will happen.
Remember, dont hesitate to mail them. But be polite.
Actually, Digital is Compaq. As I recall it, Compaq bought Digital with everything; the company, their IP, and their brand. So nowadays "Digital" is only a brand, belonging to Compaq, and Digital as a sole company doesn't exist, so it's Compaq that makes Tru64, even if it's probably the same cool guys who once worked at Digital who's doing it under Compaq's name.
I'd say yes you can. I have two 8.4GB drives and one 20GB drive mounted on my Linux 2.2.12 system. No problems at all, standard fdisk, mke2fs and mount managed it without any extra settings, and it works perfectly fine.
The only sad part is the time... mke2fs did take a while...;) And I fear the time when I have to "test" the fsck times... =/
Actually, the 2 GB maximum partition size limit only existed with FAT16. All Windows9x versions since Win95 OSR2 can handle FAT32, which copes significantly more (don't remember the exact number).
It's beeing distributed by default with many Linux distros (try man gettext) and is essentially a tool for software developers to make their software translateable. This is essentially done by storing all the program output strings in a file, making it easy for translation.
After a software package is translated into a language and sent pack to the developer, it is distributed by default with all instances of that software, and all the end user has to do is to set an environment variable (in bash export LANG=xx, where xx is the language code, like ja for japanese, sv for swedish etc.) to get all output on his system in that language, in case a translation exists.
It works very well, except from the sad fact that far from all software is translated, not to mention the documentation.
The Free Software Foundation has had a translation project for a long time, mainly translating the most important GNU software and some other free software too. It already has a lot of translators world-wide working for free (including me =), and this is why all you have today is to type
export LANG=sv_SE
in your.bashrc on your favourite Linux distro and get a lot of program output automatically translated for you (I thought your native tongue had to be Swedish, just like mine, after reading your user info;)
Hence, in case you want your software translated, you may try to use this translation effort.
Another comment regarding this story: I know that i18n is a huge and complex process, and it has to be divided into several sub-processes and efforts, but i still hope that there won't be a lot of new other translation APIs and translation groups that won't work together in their efforts. I hope this Li18n initiative will act much like a common resource for Linux Software translation, and work with those translation efforts already existant. We don't need the translation work done twice by different groups.
Today there is already the Gnome i18n group, the KDE i18n group, the GNU/FSF translation project, the various documentation translation groups, the Mozilla i18n project, and various other groups, and although they don't work with the same translations, I wish they could work more closely together, without duplicating efforts with translation APIs, translation software, documentation for translators, etc. Just my thoughts.
Most of the posts have missed the point and have gone off into little metric vs. english flamage. Who cares what the units are? Just make sure you're using the same units.
I completely agree with you, but I think that you fail to see that this little wisedom is not only true for development teams in a project, a corporation or even a country, it is also true for the whole wide world. As long as different units are used, there will always be mistakes. Information travels globally these days, and people work together globally. Technologies and information come from all parts of the world. So to make sure we're using the same units is exactly what people have tried to do with the use of the metric system worldwide. Let's see if the US can do it too.
Don't forget that while it is true that SCIENTISTS use the metric system in R&D... Please don't forget the rest of the world...;)
Seriously, I think it's not impossible at all to do the conversion, even in the US. It has happened before, in all times. The metric system didn't spread around the world in a night. Everywhere where there has been a change in measurements there have been protests. Loud, painful, and even sometimes riots.
But it always gets to the point where people start getting used to it. When they realize that it hasn't changed the world around them (physically), that using the new measurements work, and most important of all, they get a grip of how much the new measurements are, the complaints from ordinary people about the change will disappear. When the average person understands that he is 175 cm tall and hence can get some clue about other heights in the metric system from that, and that his car can speed up to 210 km/h, and that other cars that are slower than his would speed up to some speed lower than that, he would begin to understand. It's all about people getting a grip of what the common limits, measurements and distances they use in their everyday life look like in the metric system. Once they've come to that point, the translation goes much quicker.
A (good?) proposal would hence to make people get cheap, simple translation/conversion utilities, so that they can start getting familiar with metric values, and at the same time enforce the use of metric systems in law. The thing about conversion utilities is happening in many European countries as we speak. We have to get used to a new currency, the Euro, and even before people have their new money in their hands they can measure what their salary would be and what that bottle of cola would cost.
I don't think the "learning" of metric systems in school would be necessary to make the conversion possible. That would just mean that the US should have to wait 70 years or something like that from now before a conversion, when all of the population has learned the metric system from school... Such a time perspective is rediciolus, if you ask me. A change would have to be quick and as painless as possible. A "smooth" transition, where both systems would cooexist just causes pain, frustration and accidents like the above mentioned, just more commonly and in everyday life and in every situation, for a long period of time. Surely a quick conversion would also cause pain, but I'd prefer the quicker pain...;)
It could take years or decades for people to get used to a new measurement system in every aspect in the world around them, but I think that it sure would be worth it. Help people getting used to the new system by giving them tools for conversion (or sell them cheap). Start conversion of public systems, regulations, declarations, government information and so on. It has to start with a law. I know that most Americans hate laws and regulations, but sorry folks, some things has to start with a law so that they can ever happen, and I think that this is definately such a thing.
So start it! Can't we use a global Slashdot effect to convince the US politicians?;-)
I am sure a much more significant negative image is created by word of mouth from people who jumped ship from M$ to Linux and had a bad experience because they really weren't prepared for it.
I completely agree. I've had the same experience too many times. Therefore, when spreading the word about Linux nowadays, I think everyone should really, really think twice about the users situation before convincing them to "try Linux". I do that, since I've convinced too many to try Linux and they came back very disappointed and had lost most of their enthusiasm over that "Linux thingie" because Linux didn't work for them.
Questions you should ask yourself are:
What will the user use Linux for? Will he/she be able to do something with Linux that he/she could not do before? If not, then they will think learning Linux is probably not worth it. "Linux is cool!", "Linux is far mor stable than Winblows!" are arguments that generally don't attract the average home user considering the overhead of learning how to use an entirely different OS. On the other hand, if you point out that really learning Linux takes some time, and they are still enthusiastic, and if they have a reason to use Linux, go ahead. =)
Ask the user about his computer hardware before recommending him/her to try a Linux install. There's nothing more disappointing to a new user than fighting with a Linux/X installation for hours on his brand new computer and don't get it to work, and later on for you to explain, after the user explaining to you his/her problems, that his/her brand new Voodoo3 2000 card is not supported by XFree86 (yet). Even more disappointing is for him/her to try out the beta Voodoo3 drivers that exist and realise that they freeze X all the time, and that the user has no real chance to really try Gnome/KDE out.
So until X detects and supports all the newest video cards, and installs them correctly, and detects nearly all the monitor types out there in the big wide world without having to ask the user for horizontal refresh rates, I think there has to be work done to make the installation easier. The average home user wants a GUI and therefore a Linux installation will never be easier than a successful XFree86 installation.
Until this is the case, I will still have to ask those people [who come to me and say that they're interested in trying Linux out, after all they heard about it in the press] for their hardware, just so that they won't get disappointed. Automatical hardware detection is a crucial point in ease of installation. Of course, when Linux installs easily, it doesn't automatically make Linux easy to use, but my whole point is that to make Linux easy to use, it must also be easy to install. Kind a like the Windows98 installation. Yes, it still asks you some stupid questions, and it takes forever to install, but it detects most new hardware properly.
apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade
on
RedHat 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
Redhat 6.0 is based on kernel 2.2.x, RedHat 5.x are (were?) based on 2.0.x.
I smothfully upgraded Redhat 5.1 to 5.2 "on-the-fly", and my machine still isn't rebooted. It has a constant load of 1.00 and an uptime of 145 days.
However, when it comes to RH 6.0, there is a problem. Perhaps YOU can do a switch from 2.0.x to 2.2.x without rebooting; I sure can't... =P
Slashdot Mirror
http://help.netscape.com/kb/cons umer/981014-6.html
I don't think it's just because the larger IE user base that many web site creators test their sites in IE.
They simply test against IE because it's their favorite browser and therefore the browser they're developing for.
The reason why they like IE? Because it supports more CSS and DHTML and thatalike and renders their pages like they want them to. Netscape, on the other hand, lacks descent implementations of those things.
But, since Netscape 5 will support almost all recent standards, I think this will change. Many web developers are not against supporting multiple browsers, they're just so bored with the fact that whatever they do, IE and Netscape won't render their CSS code and so on the same way or even close. So they lose interest in Netscape, and primarily focus on IE, leaving Netscape users in the dust.
So I think that when a standards-compliant and standards-uptodate Netscape comes, web developers will start to test against Netscape more often, maybe even developing primarily for Netscape 5 and testing in IE.
Web developers are no evil, they just hate tools or programs that simply won't make their work work. On the other hand, Netscape 5 could become the web developers' new best friend.
Nope, I at least can't find one. Check out the Media Player download page. Maybe you're thinking of the Macintosh version.
Or, on the other hand, you could be be partially right. If I remember it correctly, when MS first created Media Player they said they would make it the de facto player and create versions for multiple OSes, I even think they mentioned Linux, but since then then they seem to have changed their mind, and at some stage renamed it to Windows Media Player. The only port there is to see seem to be the Mac beta port.
I've set up a Linux box for my somewhat computer-illiterate dad. Works perfectly fine, the only thing he uses the computer for is to visit some stock market web sites and online stock trading. And with some neat icons on the desktop for this matter and some first-time guidance he now manages this just fine.
Some weeks ago, however, he saw an URL for a new stock web site in an advertisement. He wanted to try it out, but it neatly krasched Netscape every time. You guessed it, it seemed to be a java applet that krasched Netscape when rendering the page.
I mailed the webmaster, and kindly explained the situation for him, with as many technical details I could, and that it would be wise to make the site accessible for non-Windows users too. The day after, I got a kind response from the site manager saying that he was sorry for any inconvinience and that he would let the web site developers look into it.
Then I forgot about the whole thing, until some weeks later, when I played around with my dad's computer again. This time the site (and the applet) worked. The site was still a pain to read (small, fixed font) but it would at least load.
So I guess that the best way to treat "incompatible" sites is just emailing the webmasters and kindly explaining the situation. Don't be afraid of explaining exactly what makes the site incompatible, since most web developers don't test the sites on every platform. They test it in IE and maybe Netscape on Windows in different resolutions and that's it. Maybe, if they're serious, they also test it on Macs.
Linux / BeOS / UNIX? Naeeee... never heard of it. You mean we actually have site visitors that uses those systems? You've got to be kidding.
Ok, there are developers that test their work under whatever browser/platform possible. But those are few. It is a pain in the *ss to test web sites extensively - so I don't blame the developers for not wanting to test everything. But if they start getting attention from some visitors, or preferrably the company that ordered the web site, saying "hey, we've got some mail recently from visitors saying they could not access the site, what's up?" things will happen.
Remember, dont hesitate to mail them. But be polite.
As I recall it, Compaq bought Digital with everything; the company, their IP, and their brand.
So nowadays "Digital" is only a brand, belonging to Compaq, and Digital as a sole company doesn't exist, so it's Compaq that makes Tru64, even if it's probably the same cool guys who once worked at Digital who's doing it under Compaq's name.
The only sad part is the time... mke2fs did take a while... ;) And I fear the time when I have to "test" the fsck times... =/
I also don't know if this tool works with languages other than C. I'm just a translator, not a software developer... ;)
It's beeing distributed by default with many Linux distros (try man gettext) and is essentially a tool for software developers to make their software translateable. This is essentially done by storing all the program output strings in a file, making it easy for translation.
After a software package is translated into a language and sent pack to the developer, it is distributed by default with all instances of that software, and all the end user has to do is to set an environment variable (in bash export LANG=xx, where xx is the language code, like ja for japanese, sv for swedish etc.) to get all output on his system in that language, in case a translation exists.
It works very well, except from the sad fact that far from all software is translated, not to mention the documentation.
export LANG=sv_SE
in your .bashrc on your favourite Linux distro and get a lot of program output automatically translated for you (I thought your native tongue had to be Swedish, just like mine, after reading your user info ;)
Hence, in case you want your software translated, you may try to use this translation effort.
Another comment regarding this story: I know that i18n is a huge and complex process, and it has to be divided into several sub-processes and efforts, but i still hope that there won't be a lot of new other translation APIs and translation groups that won't work together in their efforts. I hope this Li18n initiative will act much like a common resource for Linux Software translation, and work with those translation efforts already existant. We don't need the translation work done twice by different groups.
Today there is already the Gnome i18n group, the KDE i18n group, the GNU/FSF translation project, the various documentation translation groups, the Mozilla i18n project, and various other groups, and although they don't work with the same translations, I wish they could work more closely together, without duplicating efforts with translation APIs, translation software, documentation for translators, etc. Just my thoughts.
http://www.jordanr.dhs.org/isinfo.htm
The link above lists some of the nice features.
(300 Mm/s = 300*10^6 m/s = 300*1000000 m/s = 300 000 000 m/s, but you should already know that)
I completely agree with you, but I think that you fail to see that this little wisedom is not only true for development teams in a project, a corporation or even a country, it is also true for the whole wide world. As long as different units are used, there will always be mistakes. Information travels globally these days, and people work together globally. Technologies and information come from all parts of the world. So to make sure we're using the same units is exactly what people have tried to do with the use of the metric system worldwide. Let's see if the US can do it too.
Please don't forget the rest of the world...
Seriously, I think it's not impossible at all to do the conversion, even in the US. It has happened before, in all times. The metric system didn't spread around the world in a night. Everywhere where there has been a change in measurements there have been protests. Loud, painful, and even sometimes riots.
But it always gets to the point where people start getting used to it. When they realize that it hasn't changed the world around them (physically), that using the new measurements work, and most important of all, they get a grip of how much the new measurements are, the complaints from ordinary people about the change will disappear.
When the average person understands that he is 175 cm tall and hence can get some clue about other heights in the metric system from that, and that his car can speed up to 210 km/h, and that other cars that are slower than his would speed up to some speed lower than that, he would begin to understand. It's all about people getting a grip of what the common limits, measurements and distances they use in their everyday life look like in the metric system. Once they've come to that point, the translation goes much quicker.
A (good?) proposal would hence to make people get cheap, simple translation/conversion utilities, so that they can start getting familiar with metric values, and at the same time enforce the use of metric systems in law.
The thing about conversion utilities is happening in many European countries as we speak. We have to get used to a new currency, the Euro, and even before people have their new money in their hands they can measure what their salary would be and what that bottle of cola would cost.
I don't think the "learning" of metric systems in school would be necessary to make the conversion possible. That would just mean that the US should have to wait 70 years or something like that from now before a conversion, when all of the population has learned the metric system from school... Such a time perspective is rediciolus, if you ask me. ;)
A change would have to be quick and as painless as possible. A "smooth" transition, where both systems would cooexist just causes pain, frustration and accidents like the above mentioned, just more commonly and in everyday life and in every situation, for a long period of time. Surely a quick conversion would also cause pain, but I'd prefer the quicker pain...
It could take years or decades for people to get used to a new measurement system in every aspect in the world around them, but I think that it sure would be worth it.
Help people getting used to the new system by giving them tools for conversion (or sell them cheap). Start conversion of public systems, regulations, declarations, government information and so on. It has to start with a law. I know that most Americans hate laws and regulations, but sorry folks, some things has to start with a law so that they can ever happen, and I think that this is definately such a thing.
So start it! Can't we use a global Slashdot effect to convince the US politicians? ;-)
I've tried it out, and disabling JavaScript helps. At least for me.
I completely agree. I've had the same experience too many times. Therefore, when spreading the word about Linux nowadays, I think everyone should really, really think twice about the users situation before convincing them to "try Linux". I do that, since I've convinced too many to try Linux and they came back very disappointed and had lost most of their enthusiasm over that "Linux thingie" because Linux didn't work for them.
Questions you should ask yourself are:
So until X detects and supports all the newest video cards, and installs them correctly, and detects nearly all the monitor types out there in the big wide world without having to ask the user for horizontal refresh rates, I think there has to be work done to make the installation easier. The average home user wants a GUI and therefore a Linux installation will never be easier than a successful XFree86 installation.
Until this is the case, I will still have to ask those people [who come to me and say that they're interested in trying Linux out, after all they heard about it in the press] for their hardware, just so that they won't get disappointed.
Automatical hardware detection is a crucial point in ease of installation. Of course, when Linux installs easily, it doesn't automatically make Linux easy to use, but my whole point is that to make Linux easy to use, it must also be easy to install.
Kind a like the Windows98 installation. Yes, it still asks you some stupid questions, and it takes forever to install, but it detects most new hardware properly.
Redhat 6.0 is based on kernel 2.2.x, RedHat 5.x are (were?) based on 2.0.x.
I smothfully upgraded Redhat 5.1 to 5.2 "on-the-fly", and my machine still isn't rebooted. It has a constant load of 1.00 and an uptime of 145 days.
However, when it comes to RH 6.0, there is a problem. Perhaps YOU can do a switch from 2.0.x to 2.2.x without rebooting; I sure can't... =P