"Besides, that's just word soup, and the name is stupid. You may "view a web page" all you want but it doesn't change the undeniable fact that you use ie to view a web page"
You don't have to use IE to view a web page. Try typing a URL in the address bar in an Explorer window. You're not "using" IE any more than you are "using" Explorer.
"application isn't going anywhere from that equation no matter how the words are twisted"
Yes, it is. That's why Microsoft has spent *years* adding features to Windows to make applications more integrated and transparent. The results? I can now extract an RAR file without "running" an application. I can browse my Pocket PC without "opening" an application. I can configure printers, scanners, cameras, faxes, fonts, and network connections without an application. I can view directories, web pages, network shares, FTP servers, my Pocket PC, my digital camera, and a lot more, all in the same application.
They may not be there yet, but trust me, Microsoft is going there.
"That is, a newly spawned player cannot be injured for 5-10 seconds after spawning unless he or she engages in an offensive attack. (This last part is to stop those that are newly spawned from tipping the balance of power in reverse.)"
This is eactly what UT2004 does. Unfortunately, many server admins deliberately turn it off.
The new fad in UT2004 is "lev lifting". Due to a physics bug, you can lift the huge tank-like vehicle with the Raptor (a flying vehicle). This should be fixed in a patch.
- 160x120 pixel display - 3MB flash - 12mhz 68000 CPU (with a nice GCC toolset) - Nice keypad *optimized for numeric input* Look, *you can't enter math well with a QWERTY keyboard*. You need something designed for the purpose. That's why the TI-89 has buttons for all of the basics, plus shift-functions for things like sin/cos/tan, arcsin/arccos/arctan, =/!=, and a whole ton more. There's no need to enter "sin(" which requires four keypresses and a shift. Nor is there a need to enter "^", "+", or "*" with a shift key.
It's better with a numeric keypad, but, honestly, a phone doesn't have room for a dedicated numeric keypad, math functions, and a QWERTY keyboard.
That, plus the fact that the TI's run months on a set of AAA's, is what makes them popular.
Sidenote: "Software" is plural. You can't use "a software". Try "an application" instead. Not that I'm exactly perfect.
Outside of Denver, there is a pretty big water park (that's actually run by the municipality) called "Water World". A few years back, Water World introduced a similar system. Users had a watch-style band (waterproof, of course) with a barcode and a radio transmitter. They could go to any one of many kiosks around the park (which each had a barcode reader and a plasma display) and scan their band. Each member of their party was displayed on the plasma screen.
Unfortunately, the system was torn out after it failed to generate any revenue.
"where if I am forced to use a Windows machine (and IE) I am greeted with a slow browser with no features, tons of pop-ups, lack of tabbed browsing, lack of middle click, etc"
Frankly, your view doesn't square with reality. I have a PIII 500 notebook, and IE on Windows beats the pants out of FireFox (or Epiphany, or Mozilla) on Linux. FireFox on Windows is still faster than FireFox on Linux, but it still lags behind IE.
I *do* have accelerated X drivers (ATI Rage 128).
IE is *not* slow compared to Mozilla. Install them both on a low-end Windows box and evaluate the difference. On the PII 233's with 128M of memory I work with, IE is *far* faster than Mozilla. And, yes, I killed Explorer to make sure IE wasn't taking up memory during the Mozilla tests. Mozilla Firebird and Mozilla were both far slower than IE. They also used more memory.
Now, about tabbed browsing. You may love it but the fact is that it breaks the UI paridigm. Windows is *document centric*, not application centric. You don't "use" IE, you view a web page. That's why Word is no longer MDI. You don't "use" Word, you open a document.
People always say how easy the "new" Nautilus is. Microsoft is trying to follow the same paridigm. Having tabs makes the UI application centric.
As for pop-up blocking, it's a long-overdue feature coming in SP6.
Look, IE has some major problems (nonconformance to standards, security risks, pop-ups), but speed is not one of them.
Sidenote: Many complain that they can't write websites that work in both IE and Mozilla and conform to the standards. This is bull. I have written XHTML 1.1 compliant websites which look good (the same) in Mozilla, Opera, IE, and KHTML. How? IE6 has a compliant mode which changes how it renders HTML/CSS to better fit the standard. Look it up on MSDN some time before complaining.
Sidenote 2: I agree about GNOME. Some things just strike me as a move backwards. I think the overall strive for usability is good, but this complete hatred of features is irrational. KDE's not great either: a default KDE desktop has *three* text editors, all of which have different features. There are multiple word processors, and a whole lot more. KDE is the anti-GNOME, and it goes too far. When the Control Center has ~80 pages of options, there is something wrong. That, and the whole "look at me, I can come up with a cleaver program name" thing is getting all. Microsoft's products have simple, memorable names: "Office", "Word", "Outlook", "Internet Explorer", "Notepad", "Media Player", "NetMeeting", "Remote Desktop". The KDE project should focus on names which are memorable and descripive.
PAL may be higher resolution (~580 lines vs. 480 lines, after overscan) but it's crap in other ways. Particularly the fact that the vertical refresh is 50Hz.
ATSC 720P delivers 720 noninterlaced (progressive) lines, 60 frames a second. 1080i delivers 1080 interlaced lines, 60 fields a second.
PAL is OK, but it still doesn't look great on a 42" Plasma. Even an EDTV can reveal the flaws of PAL.
Yes, PAL is far better than NTSC, particularly in the color department. Remember, however, that many in the US haven't used NTSC for years. Digital recievers (Cable, DBS) have been available with S-Video and Component outputs for years now. This neutralizes the color problems with NTSC. PAL still has better resolution, but it's not a huge difference.
NTSC is crap because it came first, and because it had backwards compatibility. NTSC hacked color onto the existing black-and-white signal in a way that allowed black-and-white TV's to still recieve the old signal - without requirng two channels. Moreover, NTSC came out in 1954. PAL came out in 1963. During the 9 years between NTSC and PAL, technology improved and much was learned from the problems with NTSC.
HDTV is a whole different ballgame. I'm in Fort Collins, CO, and I can get signals from 70 miles away with a pair of rabbit ears. Signals that come in perfectly clear with high-resolution and 5.1 sound.
The European Digital TV system (which, like GSM, will likely become the worldwide standard), DVB-T, is a fine system. But to reach my location the signal would have to be twice as strong. If the US had used DVB-T, I wouldn't have broadcast digital TV (fortunately, I can still get Dish Network, DirecTV, or Comcast Digital Cable). And DVB-T doesn't offer enough bandwidth for high-quality HD.
ATSC rocks. Anyone who tells you otherwise is dealing with the frustration of stations who refuse to broadcast at full power (in Denver, CBS, PBS, ABC, and NBC are at very low power; FOX is at 1/2 power; and WB is at 3/4 power; WB and FOX come in fine). When the stations crank the wattage up (as required by 2006), ATSC will reach nearly everyone in the US.
HDTV and ATSC are awesome technologies which are here today. Imagine great picture quality and sound, 4x as much programming, an interactive programming guide, and more - all from a pair of rabbit ears. It's coming.
They fined Microsoft $590 million dollars. Last quarter, Microsoft made $10 billion dollars in profit.
Microsoft has $40 billion in the bank. They recorded record revenues and earnings in the last quarter.
Instead of forcing Microsoft to do something that would change their actions, they gave them a slap on the wrist. A version of XP without WMP. Microsoft's really moping about that one. Oh, and a $600 million fine. Just another cost of doing business.
The US DOJ did a much better job. They forced Microsoft to stop bullying their OEMs. No longer can Microsoft force OEMs to ship Windows on every computer. That's why you see companies like Dell and HP shipping systems with Linux.
No, the DOJ did not go far enough. But neither did the EU. The EU did *nothing*. Microsoft doesn't care about a fine. They are like a rich businessperson who continually speeds and is continually ticketed. You can fine them all you want, but it won't have an effect.
Bottom Line (TM): - The EU gave MS a slap on the wrist - The DOJ ruling was too weak, but it did stop MS from bullying OEMs
Sory, but a 1.5GHz G4 is nothing like a P4 3.0GHZ.
For one, the data bus is *way* slower than the data bus on a P4. There is no way that the G4 has anwhere near as much memory bandwidth as the P4 with an 800MHz FSB.
Two, despite the fact that the G4 is faster MHz for MHz, it's *never* 2X except in some very specailized situations (highly AltiVec optimized code, extremely floating point heavy code).
MHz for MHz, G4 is roughly equivelent to Athlon XP "Barton".
So, a 1.6GHz G4 = 2.0GHz P4.
What you "feel" isn't reflected by the benchmarks.
In the closed source world, you can demand features, and the developer better listen.
Microsoft is securing their OS because of this. Quicken gets better every year because of this.
With OSS, you can't demand features.
But it's not the user's fault.
A good developer *listens*. If you ask for a car in a color that's not on the lot, the salesman will order it for you. OSS developers should have the same attitude.
By the way, fixing it yourself or paying someone else to do it is a disaster. What happens when the program changes? You now have a non-standard version. Who do you turn to when something goes wrong? What about if there is a security patch?
Users don't want excuses. They don't care that the developer isn't being paid. They don't care that they are not the target audience. They don't want to hear "why not".
If you don't develop for your users, then why are you developing at all?
That's why Linux won't take off. Developers need to develop for needs other than their own! That's what the GNOME project has learned.
I wouldn't expect a German version of Quicken to have US functions. But I would expect that if there were demand for a version of Quicken for >, Intuit would develop one.
Just because the GNUCash developers are German doesn't mean that GNUCash can't support US taxes, 401Ks, and other functions.
The original poster was describing why GNUCash didn't work for them. So, no, there really isn't a good financial package for many users. The answer is not to tell the individual to "develop it themselves" or to make up excuses about the developers being in Germany.
Users don't want excuses. They want solutions. Microsoft understands that. Apple understands that. The GNOME project understands that.
Boeing was (and is) paid obscene amounts of money to work on projects that are complete flops. It's like me saying to you:
"I want a computer 100 times faster than anything available. Here's 100 billion dollars. Go spend ten years in research and then tell me that you need more money."
Now, what the EU did with Airbus was wrong. But to say that Boeing isn't subsidized is wrong. They were subsidized through huge DOD projects which spent years in "development".
Ask any DOD contractor and they will tell you that the gravy train is rolling in.
Anyone with five minutes and a copy of ethereal could learn that iTMS uses HTTP. If you fake the user-agent you can load a URL. It's an XML file for heavens sake.
You have a valid point but are anti-European. I have no problems using Airbus jets - Airbus *did* recieve no-intrest loans from European nations but Boeing is effectively subsidised by the DOD (buying unnecessary technology upgrades).
GSM is an inferior technology: - Less users per cell - Smaller cells - More prone to interference
But it also has advantages: - SIM - Global standard
"Yes, AT&T Wireless (now part of Cingular) had its share of problems. There's no doubt about that. But at they made the right decision to choose GSM. Verizon and Sprint PCS chose wrongly, and so they are destined to fail."
Sprint PCS and Verizon use CDMA2000, hereby referred to as "CDMA".
Right. CDMA must be worse because it handles more users per cell, right? Or is it because it doesn't have hard cell-size limits? Or... how about the fact that it copes with noise better. Or the fact that it uses less power to go the same distance. Or is it that the voice quality is better?
Look, GSM has some advantages (worldwide standard, SIM, cool phones), but CDMA is fundamentally the better technology. That's why the new GSM (UMTS) system uses CDMA technology.
Verizon Wireless is doing great. So is Sprint. Verizon is 2nd to ATT/Cingular. And most of ATT/Cingular's customers are still using IS-136 (D-AMPS). Sprint has captured a stunning market share with there relatively new network.
"There is only room for one mobile phone technology in this world, and it's not CDMA. I know the US government is behind it, but they cannot force us all to use it."
Right. Just like there is only room for one operating system. Just like there is only room for one political opinion.
The US government *is* behind the usage of CDMA in the US. But it's not because they mandated CDMA. Far from it. In Europe, GSM *was* mandated. Mandating GSM had some advantages - Europe had a fully-digital system with good coverage far before the US did (part of that has to do with population density).
But not mandating GSM also had advantages in the US. We had competition between formats. CDMA was developed and implemented because carriers had the ability to choose the best standard.
GSM is, realistically, not the right standard for the US. GSM cells are too small for rural areas - much smaller than AMPS cells. The carriers who have deployed GSM in the US have learned the hard way that covering Wyoming or Kansas with GSM cells is extremely difficult.
So, your solution to fixing the drawbacks of GNUCash over a commercial system is to:
Fix it yourself
Right. This is so typical of open-source philosiphy. Believe it or not, you typical user *does not* want to hear rants about *why* GNUCash doesn't do what they want.
That's why commercial software remains more popular. Intuit doesn't tell its users that the features they want are trivial. They don't tell their users to "do it themselves". Their product has to *sell*, so they can't tell their users to bug off.
Sorry, but Linux is not ready for primetime if this is what the software situation is like. Someone was stating that the accounting software was severely lacking in Linux. Someone else stated that GNUCash might be a solution. Evidently, it isn't a very good one. Particularly not if the developers have an attitude anything like the parent.
The Open Source movement would rather change the world than their software.
"Text messaging isn't useless when you want to tell someone something that can be said in a few words like "be there in 15" without having to engage in unimportant conversation and annoy people around you."
That's what Nextel's walkie-talkie is great for. No dialing, no introductions, just "beep-beep", "be there in 15", "beep-beep", "OK".
A lot faster than typing it out on a keypad if you ask me, unless of course you happen to have a Hiptop or Blackberry or Treo.
We're fighting the wrong thing. It's not software patents that are bad, it's *bad* patents in general.
Think of this: if I developed an algorithm to encode images, without a patent I would have to keep the implementation secret to be able to make any money. With software patents, I can patent the algorithm, and release source code for the world to use.
While the submarine-enforcement of the MP3 patent is bad, the actual patent is perfectly valid. Why shouldn't Fraunhofer IIS get royalties for the technology they paid for and developed.
If you can patent an improved screw head ("Torx(R) Plus"), why not an algorithm? If you developed a new compression technology or a new encryption technology, why is that any less of an invention than an improved screw head?
What we really need to fight are bad patents. Amazon's "one click" patent is one. Patents are *bad* when they are to broad or don't cover a real invention. But bad patents are a problem with the review system.
This is so fitting with the Slashdot mentality that "software should be free" and that "copyright is bad". Copyright and patent law serves a valuable and important purpose: allowing inventors and (in this case) programmers to decide how their work is distributed. Copyright law has become problematic - we need to go back to the original 14-year copyrights. Patent law has become problematic - we need to stop "inventors" from patenting trivial concepts. But these are problems with the system, not with the concepts of copyright and patent law.
I end with this:
If you invented a new concept in software, such as a better compression algorithm or a better voice recognition algorithm or a more efficent protocol to transmit data, why is your invention any less of an invention than if you had invented a better screw head?
If you inveted a new compression system, which is better for the community: a patent which forces disclosure of the algorithm and eventually expires, or a trade secret which requires that the algorithm be kept secret and closed and may never expire?
If you have XP pro (don't know about home) you can turn on auditing. This will track every file written/read/modified/moved/deleted/created as well as failed attempts to do so.
Viruses attempt to duplicate themselves by modifying executables to include their code. Spyware is bundled willigly into software by its publisher and does not modify executables.
Worm viruses attempt to replicate by exploiting network exploits or transferring through email. Spyware does not attempt to replicate.
Viruses often destroy or modify data. Spyware is annoying but generally does not destroy data intentionally.
Spyware does not generally bring computer networks to their knees with a barrage of traffic.
Spyware does not generate thousands of email messeges.
Sorry, Slashdot users, Spyware != Viruses. Yes, they are both annoying, but so is spam and pop-up ads. Spyware is far less destructive than any virus.
Slashdot Mirror
"Besides, that's just word soup, and the name is stupid. You may "view a web page" all you want but it doesn't change the undeniable fact that you use ie to view a web page"
You don't have to use IE to view a web page. Try typing a URL in the address bar in an Explorer window. You're not "using" IE any more than you are "using" Explorer.
"application isn't going anywhere from that equation no matter how the words are twisted"
Yes, it is. That's why Microsoft has spent *years* adding features to Windows to make applications more integrated and transparent. The results? I can now extract an RAR file without "running" an application. I can browse my Pocket PC without "opening" an application. I can configure printers, scanners, cameras, faxes, fonts, and network connections without an application. I can view directories, web pages, network shares, FTP servers, my Pocket PC, my digital camera, and a lot more, all in the same application.
They may not be there yet, but trust me, Microsoft is going there.
"That is, a newly spawned player cannot be injured for 5-10 seconds after spawning unless he or she engages in an offensive attack. (This last part is to stop those that are newly spawned from tipping the balance of power in reverse.)"
This is eactly what UT2004 does. Unfortunately, many server admins deliberately turn it off.
The new fad in UT2004 is "lev lifting". Due to a physics bug, you can lift the huge tank-like vehicle with the Raptor (a flying vehicle). This should be fixed in a patch.
My TI-89 has:
- 160x120 pixel display
- 3MB flash
- 12mhz 68000 CPU (with a nice GCC toolset)
- Nice keypad *optimized for numeric input*
Look, *you can't enter math well with a QWERTY keyboard*. You need something designed for the purpose. That's why the TI-89 has buttons for all of the basics, plus shift-functions for things like sin/cos/tan, arcsin/arccos/arctan, =/!=, and a whole ton more. There's no need to enter "sin(" which requires four keypresses and a shift. Nor is there a need to enter "^", "+", or "*" with a shift key.
It's better with a numeric keypad, but, honestly, a phone doesn't have room for a dedicated numeric keypad, math functions, and a QWERTY keyboard.
That, plus the fact that the TI's run months on a set of AAA's, is what makes them popular.
Sidenote: "Software" is plural. You can't use "a software". Try "an application" instead. Not that I'm exactly perfect.
Outside of Denver, there is a pretty big water park (that's actually run by the municipality) called "Water World". A few years back, Water World introduced a similar system. Users had a watch-style band (waterproof, of course) with a barcode and a radio transmitter. They could go to any one of many kiosks around the park (which each had a barcode reader and a plasma display) and scan their band. Each member of their party was displayed on the plasma screen.
Unfortunately, the system was torn out after it failed to generate any revenue.
"where if I am forced to use a Windows machine (and IE) I am greeted with a slow browser with no features, tons of pop-ups, lack of tabbed browsing, lack of middle click, etc"
Frankly, your view doesn't square with reality. I have a PIII 500 notebook, and IE on Windows beats the pants out of FireFox (or Epiphany, or Mozilla) on Linux. FireFox on Windows is still faster than FireFox on Linux, but it still lags behind IE.
I *do* have accelerated X drivers (ATI Rage 128).
IE is *not* slow compared to Mozilla. Install them both on a low-end Windows box and evaluate the difference. On the PII 233's with 128M of memory I work with, IE is *far* faster than Mozilla. And, yes, I killed Explorer to make sure IE wasn't taking up memory during the Mozilla tests. Mozilla Firebird and Mozilla were both far slower than IE. They also used more memory.
Now, about tabbed browsing. You may love it but the fact is that it breaks the UI paridigm. Windows is *document centric*, not application centric. You don't "use" IE, you view a web page. That's why Word is no longer MDI. You don't "use" Word, you open a document.
People always say how easy the "new" Nautilus is. Microsoft is trying to follow the same paridigm. Having tabs makes the UI application centric.
As for pop-up blocking, it's a long-overdue feature coming in SP6.
Look, IE has some major problems (nonconformance to standards, security risks, pop-ups), but speed is not one of them.
Sidenote: Many complain that they can't write websites that work in both IE and Mozilla and conform to the standards. This is bull. I have written XHTML 1.1 compliant websites which look good (the same) in Mozilla, Opera, IE, and KHTML. How? IE6 has a compliant mode which changes how it renders HTML/CSS to better fit the standard. Look it up on MSDN some time before complaining.
Sidenote 2: I agree about GNOME. Some things just strike me as a move backwards. I think the overall strive for usability is good, but this complete hatred of features is irrational. KDE's not great either: a default KDE desktop has *three* text editors, all of which have different features. There are multiple word processors, and a whole lot more. KDE is the anti-GNOME, and it goes too far. When the Control Center has ~80 pages of options, there is something wrong. That, and the whole "look at me, I can come up with a cleaver program name" thing is getting all. Microsoft's products have simple, memorable names: "Office", "Word", "Outlook", "Internet Explorer", "Notepad", "Media Player", "NetMeeting", "Remote Desktop". The KDE project should focus on names which are memorable and descripive.
Well...
PAL may be higher resolution (~580 lines vs. 480 lines, after overscan) but it's crap in other ways. Particularly the fact that the vertical refresh is 50Hz.
ATSC 720P delivers 720 noninterlaced (progressive) lines, 60 frames a second. 1080i delivers 1080 interlaced lines, 60 fields a second.
PAL is OK, but it still doesn't look great on a 42" Plasma. Even an EDTV can reveal the flaws of PAL.
Yes, PAL is far better than NTSC, particularly in the color department. Remember, however, that many in the US haven't used NTSC for years. Digital recievers (Cable, DBS) have been available with S-Video and Component outputs for years now. This neutralizes the color problems with NTSC. PAL still has better resolution, but it's not a huge difference.
NTSC is crap because it came first, and because it had backwards compatibility. NTSC hacked color onto the existing black-and-white signal in a way that allowed black-and-white TV's to still recieve the old signal - without requirng two channels. Moreover, NTSC came out in 1954. PAL came out in 1963. During the 9 years between NTSC and PAL, technology improved and much was learned from the problems with NTSC.
HDTV is a whole different ballgame. I'm in Fort Collins, CO, and I can get signals from 70 miles away with a pair of rabbit ears. Signals that come in perfectly clear with high-resolution and 5.1 sound.
The European Digital TV system (which, like GSM, will likely become the worldwide standard), DVB-T, is a fine system. But to reach my location the signal would have to be twice as strong. If the US had used DVB-T, I wouldn't have broadcast digital TV (fortunately, I can still get Dish Network, DirecTV, or Comcast Digital Cable). And DVB-T doesn't offer enough bandwidth for high-quality HD.
ATSC rocks. Anyone who tells you otherwise is dealing with the frustration of stations who refuse to broadcast at full power (in Denver, CBS, PBS, ABC, and NBC are at very low power; FOX is at 1/2 power; and WB is at 3/4 power; WB and FOX come in fine). When the stations crank the wattage up (as required by 2006), ATSC will reach nearly everyone in the US.
HDTV and ATSC are awesome technologies which are here today. Imagine great picture quality and sound, 4x as much programming, an interactive programming guide, and more - all from a pair of rabbit ears. It's coming.
No, they didn't.
They fined Microsoft $590 million dollars. Last quarter, Microsoft made $10 billion dollars in profit.
Microsoft has $40 billion in the bank. They recorded record revenues and earnings in the last quarter.
Instead of forcing Microsoft to do something that would change their actions, they gave them a slap on the wrist. A version of XP without WMP. Microsoft's really moping about that one. Oh, and a $600 million fine. Just another cost of doing business.
The US DOJ did a much better job. They forced Microsoft to stop bullying their OEMs. No longer can Microsoft force OEMs to ship Windows on every computer. That's why you see companies like Dell and HP shipping systems with Linux.
No, the DOJ did not go far enough. But neither did the EU. The EU did *nothing*. Microsoft doesn't care about a fine. They are like a rich businessperson who continually speeds and is continually ticketed. You can fine them all you want, but it won't have an effect.
Bottom Line (TM):
- The EU gave MS a slap on the wrist
- The DOJ ruling was too weak, but it did stop MS from bullying OEMs
Sory, but a 1.5GHz G4 is nothing like a P4 3.0GHZ.
For one, the data bus is *way* slower than the data bus on a P4. There is no way that the G4 has anwhere near as much memory bandwidth as the P4 with an 800MHz FSB.
Two, despite the fact that the G4 is faster MHz for MHz, it's *never* 2X except in some very specailized situations (highly AltiVec optimized code, extremely floating point heavy code).
MHz for MHz, G4 is roughly equivelent to Athlon XP "Barton".
So, a 1.6GHz G4 = 2.0GHz P4.
What you "feel" isn't reflected by the benchmarks.
MHz for MHz, it's about the same as the Athlon XP "Barton".
So, a 1.6GHz G4 = 2.0GHz P4.
It can be faster (Altivec optimized programs) or slower (slow bus speed), but you get the idea.
In the closed source world, you can demand features, and the developer better listen.
Microsoft is securing their OS because of this. Quicken gets better every year because of this.
With OSS, you can't demand features.
But it's not the user's fault.
A good developer *listens*. If you ask for a car in a color that's not on the lot, the salesman will order it for you. OSS developers should have the same attitude.
By the way, fixing it yourself or paying someone else to do it is a disaster. What happens when the program changes? You now have a non-standard version. Who do you turn to when something goes wrong? What about if there is a security patch?
Users don't want excuses. They don't care that the developer isn't being paid. They don't care that they are not the target audience. They don't want to hear "why not".
If you don't develop for your users, then why are you developing at all?
That's why Linux won't take off. Developers need to develop for needs other than their own! That's what the GNOME project has learned.
I wouldn't expect a German version of Quicken to have US functions. But I would expect that if there were demand for a version of Quicken for >, Intuit would develop one.
Just because the GNUCash developers are German doesn't mean that GNUCash can't support US taxes, 401Ks, and other functions.
The original poster was describing why GNUCash didn't work for them. So, no, there really isn't a good financial package for many users. The answer is not to tell the individual to "develop it themselves" or to make up excuses about the developers being in Germany.
Users don't want excuses. They want solutions. Microsoft understands that. Apple understands that. The GNOME project understands that.
So why doesn't Slashdot understand that?
DOD contracts effectively are free money.
Boeing was (and is) paid obscene amounts of money to work on projects that are complete flops. It's like me saying to you:
"I want a computer 100 times faster than anything available. Here's 100 billion dollars. Go spend ten years in research and then tell me that you need more money."
Now, what the EU did with Airbus was wrong. But to say that Boeing isn't subsidized is wrong. They were subsidized through huge DOD projects which spent years in "development".
Ask any DOD contractor and they will tell you that the gravy train is rolling in.
Take a look at Verizon. Sprint is known for poor service; Verizon's coverage is better than either Sprint or ATT.
I successfully got Mozilla to download iTMS pages in plaintext. Perhaps the encryption is a new addition.
Frankly, this isn't really interesting at all.
Anyone with five minutes and a copy of ethereal could learn that iTMS uses HTTP. If you fake the user-agent you can load a URL. It's an XML file for heavens sake.
...
And Yahoo Search returns 309,000 results.
It's not the number of results, it's how they are arranged.
You have a valid point but are anti-European. I have no problems using Airbus jets - Airbus *did* recieve no-intrest loans from European nations but Boeing is effectively subsidised by the DOD (buying unnecessary technology upgrades).
GSM is an inferior technology:
- Less users per cell
- Smaller cells
- More prone to interference
But it also has advantages:
- SIM
- Global standard
GSM-850 runs in the Cellular spectrum, similar to D-AMPS (IS-136) "TDMA", AMPS "Analog", and IS-95/CDMA2000 "CDMA".
ATT and Cingular use GSM-850 frequently when upgrading old AMPS/IS-136 towers; their new network is mostly GSM-1900. T-Mobile is all GSM-1900.
Verizon is primarily CDMA2000 800. Sprint is primarily CDMA2000 1900.
"Yes, AT&T Wireless (now part of Cingular) had its share of problems. There's no doubt about that. But at they made the right decision to choose GSM. Verizon and Sprint PCS chose wrongly, and so they are destined to fail."
Sprint PCS and Verizon use CDMA2000, hereby referred to as "CDMA".
Right. CDMA must be worse because it handles more users per cell, right? Or is it because it doesn't have hard cell-size limits? Or... how about the fact that it copes with noise better. Or the fact that it uses less power to go the same distance. Or is it that the voice quality is better?
Look, GSM has some advantages (worldwide standard, SIM, cool phones), but CDMA is fundamentally the better technology. That's why the new GSM (UMTS) system uses CDMA technology.
Verizon Wireless is doing great. So is Sprint. Verizon is 2nd to ATT/Cingular. And most of ATT/Cingular's customers are still using IS-136 (D-AMPS). Sprint has captured a stunning market share with there relatively new network.
"There is only room for one mobile phone technology in this world, and it's not CDMA. I know the US government is behind it, but they cannot force us all to use it."
Right. Just like there is only room for one operating system. Just like there is only room for one political opinion.
The US government *is* behind the usage of CDMA in the US. But it's not because they mandated CDMA. Far from it. In Europe, GSM *was* mandated. Mandating GSM had some advantages - Europe had a fully-digital system with good coverage far before the US did (part of that has to do with population density).
But not mandating GSM also had advantages in the US. We had competition between formats. CDMA was developed and implemented because carriers had the ability to choose the best standard.
GSM is, realistically, not the right standard for the US. GSM cells are too small for rural areas - much smaller than AMPS cells. The carriers who have deployed GSM in the US have learned the hard way that covering Wyoming or Kansas with GSM cells is extremely difficult.
So, your solution to fixing the drawbacks of GNUCash over a commercial system is to:
Fix it yourself
Right. This is so typical of open-source philosiphy. Believe it or not, you typical user *does not* want to hear rants about *why* GNUCash doesn't do what they want.
That's why commercial software remains more popular. Intuit doesn't tell its users that the features they want are trivial. They don't tell their users to "do it themselves". Their product has to *sell*, so they can't tell their users to bug off.
Sorry, but Linux is not ready for primetime if this is what the software situation is like. Someone was stating that the accounting software was severely lacking in Linux. Someone else stated that GNUCash might be a solution. Evidently, it isn't a very good one. Particularly not if the developers have an attitude anything like the parent.
The Open Source movement would rather change the world than their software.
"Text messaging isn't useless when you want to tell someone something that can be said in a few words like "be there in 15" without having to engage in unimportant conversation and annoy people around you."
That's what Nextel's walkie-talkie is great for. No dialing, no introductions, just "beep-beep",
"be there in 15", "beep-beep", "OK".
A lot faster than typing it out on a keypad if you ask me, unless of course you happen to have a Hiptop or Blackberry or Treo.
We're fighting the wrong thing. It's not software patents that are bad, it's *bad* patents in general.
Think of this: if I developed an algorithm to encode images, without a patent I would have to keep the implementation secret to be able to make any money. With software patents, I can patent the algorithm, and release source code for the world to use.
While the submarine-enforcement of the MP3 patent is bad, the actual patent is perfectly valid. Why shouldn't Fraunhofer IIS get royalties for the technology they paid for and developed.
If you can patent an improved screw head ("Torx(R) Plus"), why not an algorithm? If you developed a new compression technology or a new encryption technology, why is that any less of an invention than an improved screw head?
What we really need to fight are bad patents. Amazon's "one click" patent is one. Patents are *bad* when they are to broad or don't cover a real invention. But bad patents are a problem with the review system.
This is so fitting with the Slashdot mentality that "software should be free" and that "copyright is bad". Copyright and patent law serves a valuable and important purpose: allowing inventors and (in this case) programmers to decide how their work is distributed. Copyright law has become problematic - we need to go back to the original 14-year copyrights. Patent law has become problematic - we need to stop "inventors" from patenting trivial concepts. But these are problems with the system, not with the concepts of copyright and patent law.
I end with this:
If you invented a new concept in software, such as a better compression algorithm or a better voice recognition algorithm or a more efficent protocol to transmit data, why is your invention any less of an invention than if you had invented a better screw head?
If you inveted a new compression system, which is better for the community: a patent which forces disclosure of the algorithm and eventually expires, or a trade secret which requires that the algorithm be kept secret and closed and may never expire?
If you have XP pro (don't know about home) you can turn on auditing. This will track every file written/read/modified/moved/deleted/created as well as failed attempts to do so.
Intel chipset boards usually have a PATA emulation mode so you can install. VIA chipset boards and many other boards do not.
Viruses attempt to duplicate themselves by modifying executables to include their code. Spyware is bundled willigly into software by its publisher and does not modify executables.
Worm viruses attempt to replicate by exploiting network exploits or transferring through email. Spyware does not attempt to replicate.
Viruses often destroy or modify data. Spyware is annoying but generally does not destroy data intentionally.
Spyware does not generally bring computer networks to their knees with a barrage of traffic.
Spyware does not generate thousands of email messeges.
Sorry, Slashdot users, Spyware != Viruses. Yes, they are both annoying, but so is spam and pop-up ads. Spyware is far less destructive than any virus.
Not that I would want it on my system.