Firefox to internet: If you are for any reason dissatisfied with your Firefox experience, we will gladly refund your money.
Umm... are people not allowed to say 'I won't use this software'? particularly when it's one of the most popular pieces of Free software available? There's absolutely no reason to patronise them.
I'll agree that the theme thing is somewhat trivial and not right for a number one objection, but...
-"The anti phishing is weak!" ---compared to what? The antiphishing in 1.5?
Bad antiphishing could be worse than no antiphishing; this would be enough for me to stop recommending Firefox to non-technical friends and family. Your average naïve computer user who might've been a little vigilant under Firefox 1.5 or Internet Explorer because of all our hard work in warning them about the dangers, might assume that if Firefox doesn't say it's unsafe, then it must be safe. We've all seen how perfectly intelligent and capable people often have trouble understanding how the Internet works and can behave incredibly stupidly as a consequence. We shouldn't help them to be confused.
Instead of putting unreliable antiphishing code into browsers, we need to make sure our browsers always tell the truth (i.e. it's not possible to make the address bar say 'https://www.ebay.com/...' unless you're actually visiting a page on www.ebay.com over HTTPS), and we need to make sure that online services like banks and auction sites that can be trusted always make it clear when you're at their service, by always showing the address bar, and by always using their domain name for their secure services. (A lot fo banks I've used have opened up a new window with no address bar when you go to log in--or at least they did until I forced my browser to never hide it--and some Australian credit unions' online banking services use a domain like 'foo.netteller.com.au' or 'bar.netteller.com.au', for instance; they should use 'foo.com.au' or at worst 'netteller.foo.com.au'.)
-"Extensions did not automagically compatible-ize themselves!"
I don't know how hard it would've been to have kept a compatibility mode, or to have a stable API. I can run software written five years ago on my current operating system. I see no reason on the face of it that plugins shouldn't likewise be compatible. It probably would be worthwhile if they actually had designed their API and the rest of the software so that old plugins can usually keep working between version updates. It's a plausible complaint; but your response is also reasonable.
-"I don't understand the options screen!" BWAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! This can't be serious.
Why not? I don't use Firefox, so I haven't seen the new options screen. But if it is that bad, then Mozilla probably should've actually done some usability testing. It's a reasonable objection to using a particular piece of software. (You might be laughing because you think it's trivial, but Firefox is meant to be used by all and sundry, and should be accessible to the same.)
-"I don't like the RSS thingy! IE does it better!" Where was it again that RSS originated?
Umm... I don't understand why that's relevant. If IE does it better today, then when choosing between some other browser and IE, IE wins (assuming, for the moment, that RSS is your sole basis for choosing a browser). It would be significantly better if Firefox's RSS 'Just Works' as you say for IE, and that all the custom options are on top of that. Customisation should never get in the way of a good set of defaults. I don't know here tho'; I've never got into the RSS thing.
I'll say again that I don't use and don't like Firefox, but I have tended to recommend it to non-technical friends and family running Windows for their safety and security. If I think that Firefox can't be trusted by ommission or commission, then I'll have to reconsider that. The antiphishing thing and the unpatched security vulnerability are both cause for that concern. (On the other hand, I'm not sure what alternative Windows users have. Maybe Opera? I don't have enough experience with it. I doubt people will be happy to use something with bulit-in ads tho.)
Re:Ubuntu Do What Debian [C/W]ouldn't...
on
Ubuntu 6.10 is Out
·
· Score: 1
Stop karma whoring. It only makes you look, well, like a whore.
Hm, I seem to have been modded '-1 Flamebait' twice. I believe the moderations were unfair, but if I was karma whoring I would've said 'I know I'll be modded down for this, but here's the full text to that link'. I was just posting my opinions. That's what this comment functionality is about, right?
Thus, Debian is finding fault with Mozilla for doing something that Debian does itself. Where I come from, we call this hypocrisy.
No they're not, and no that's not. Debian wanted a licence to the Mozilla trademarks, and they were asking Mozilla to compromise. Mozilla did. Now Mozilla has gone back on their word, and so Debian are going to remove the remaining trademarks from Debian.
Debian also has trademarks, and they've also asked other groups to stop using them inappropriately. Debian does not even distribute their Official Debian logos in Debian, because it would be against their principles. Likewise, now that Mozilla has decided Debian no longer has a licence, Debian are removing the remaining trademarks.
HJAHAHAHAHaHaHaHaHA!!H!H!111ones!
Ooh, such wit. What can I say to that?—you obviously have won the debate! I'll pack up my things and go home now...
Re:Ubuntu Do What Debian [C/W]ouldn't...
on
Ubuntu 6.10 is Out
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
From that link: Ultimately, Debian took a position that was consistent with their own policies, and not compatible with some of the exceptions to Mozilla trademark policies that we offered
Oh my god. What is Mozilla trying to do, split the free software world in two? Those who will agree to their shit, and those who will remember the truth. This sort of FUD is completely unacceptable from what should be an upstanding organisation.
Debian's policy has always been that they can't and won't accept a licence specific to them. This applies as much to trademark licences as any other sort. Mozilla insists. Debian's policy has always been that they can't and won't distribute non-free files in the main distributions. Mozilla insists. Debian have always stuck to their policies; it is Mozilla who changes.
And in their rage against an organisation that sticks to its guns, they've even managed to avoid actually pointing to any evidence: the link 'their own policies' points to the Debian front page, which is hardly an acceptable link with that sort of an accusation.
The Mozilla Foundation/Corporation keep up their bad work, and have continued to disgust me more with each passing month; I have lost any respect for them they once had earnt. I post this in a Gecko-based browser (Galeon) only because Konqueror doesn't have any session saving capabilities when not used in KDE, and because I haven't worked out yet how to write my own KHTML-based browser. I will be glad when I can have Mozilla behind me as a sad memory of a once great product.
(Incidentally, this whole episode is a great example of the failure of open source and the success of free software. Open source means nothing; it is empty and void. Software can be developed according to the open source methodology without being free, and everyone can still lose; software can be free without being developed according to the the open source methodology, and everyone can still win. I myself would rather be in awe of a great Cathedral that works, but that I can enter, than be bumped around in some bazar.)
In Ireland you use STV for multi-electorate votes. You either use a computer; you take for ever to count the vote; or you count unfairly. For instance, if you vote for a minor candidate John Minor (that doesn't has a chance of getting elected), then a major candidate Jane Major (just about guaranteed), then another candidate Sean Citizen (who needs the preferences), and you're using the obvious but simple method you can use by hand, your vote will be transferred to your third preferences with its full value, whereas someone who just voted (1) Jane Major (2) Sean Citizen (3)... will only have the surplus value of their vote transferred.
STV is really complex; when a candidate gets knocked out can mean that everyone still in the runnings and all votes will need to be recounted in order for it to be fair. In Australia, STV elections are counted by computers even though we have the relative luxury (in terms of counting) of Group Voting Tickets ('above the line'), so 'above the line' votes can plausibly be done very easily.
STV is a remarkably fair system if done right (for instance, the maximum number of voters who wan't have a say is (quota - 1), and in practice its usually much smaller); but it's so complex to it right.
(I'm told that the votes are entered into the computers mostly by Europeans on working holiday visas. I have no idea if or how they confirm the votes have been entered propely, so maybe it's European backpackers we have to thank for the Family First Senator, not the Labor Party.)
I don't know about Canada, but in Australia we have a perpetual skills shortage in the bush/outback. You won't get high-tech slashdot jobs, but if you say you want to teach or be a doctor in the middle of nowhere, you'll have a much better chance than getting in if they think you want to live in Melbourne or Sydney.
Ah, we do get Hiluxes Down Under (although they're big utes, not small trucks;). Nasty of manufacturers to rename their vehicles like that and make me look silly.
In any case, my concern about this whole issue is the fact that it's relatively a waste of money because in order to be valuable, you'd have to keep doing it year after year; $100 million would be a nice start, but once everything's bought, it's quickly going to lose its value. Also, regardless of where the cars are sold, it's going to be of restricted value; I very much doubt there's anything I could to do my car even with a manual...
A Ford Falcon is one of the most common cars/utes on Australian roads. On the other hand, I've never heard of a Toyota Tundra or Honda Fit. Thing about cars is a lot of them aren't actually sold the whole world around. That's the issue your parent poster was talking about, not the fact that there might be some minor changes in each country.
As I say, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on Slashdot, but my interpretation of the 'for as long as' bit was that if SCO's misusing their copyright when trying to sue IBM, they're not going to be able to sue IBM ever on the same grounds, so for all intents and purposes, yes, the loss of enforcement is perpetual. But if SCO decided to change tracks and sue me for copyright infringement because I've got a pirated copy of UNIX on my computer and I'm sharing over P2P[*], then they can because it's a completely different kettle of fish. That's basically how I read the earlier posts in this thread as harmonious.
But I'm completely out of my depth here and will leave it to those who know more.
Not everyone can use the closed-source drivers. I can't. I also can't change my video card withot changing my entire computer (actually, I did do that, but then my replacement computer died just outside of warranty). If they released the source code, I would be a lot happier.
Distributions and kernel hackers also have a harder time trying to debug problems if the kernel contains binary blobs. They're better equipped to tell you why.
So it does matter for practical reasons to many people if the source code is there. Why shouldn't we make a noise about it?
(PS: I don't see what's wrong with the title including 'closed-source'. It's true, it is a closed source driver. On the other hand, there is an free driver, which doesn't have the vulnerability. One possible change would be to '... NVIDIA's Linux driver', but everyone knows that's closed-source anyway, so why does it matter either way?)
Conversely, I won't use one that DOES automatically apply preference changes -- because it is FAR too easy to make a mistake you can't readily recover from (like setting text and background to the same colour). I want some sort of "Hey stupid, did you really mean Do THIS?" query *before* changes are applied, just in case That Wasn't What I Meant.
A good user interface will make it hard do something stupid. Not impossible, not getting-in-your-way hard and not hard-to-find. More like riding-your-bike-uphill-against-the-wind hard than where've-I-left-my-keys hard. It'll also make it easy to recover from a stupid change (instant apply dialogs have a 'revert' button (and the thing you changed is probably right under your mouse, too!), but manual apply ones don't. so if you don't realise you've done something stupid, you choose 'apply' (or worse 'OK'), and goodbye to any hope of easily recovering). And instant apply isn't incompatible with warning the user they're about to do something stupid.
And lastly, isn't KDE meant to be the world of infinite configurability =)
Right-click menus that are too long can be helped with grouped submenus. I don't recall seeing this as an issue with KDE, but it's been a while since I looked.
Not what I meant. I was meaning that the maximum number of menu items in a program in total (i.e. including the main menu bar) should be what you can comfortably fit on a right-click menu (with submenus if necessary, but obviously fewer because it becomes harder to navigate). This implies, with good reason, that programs should be small and do one thing well. Not having a filemanager and a web browser in the same program (I never worked that one out, meself.)
IMO "Open Folder in Same Window" should be the default, not something you have to set. Most people simply want to navigate the dirtree, not wind up with 50 open windows.
I don't mean to be negative, but not what I meant. I want to be able to do both, with my mouse, without right-clicking and choosing a special option. I have never wanted to use a tabbed file manager. I would like Button-1 to open in a new window, and Button-2 to open in the same window. I would settle just as easily for the reverse. But KDE can give me Button-1 in a new window or the same one; but Button-2 always opens in a new tab.
Re the Save As reverting to the origin location, I'm frequently annoyed by that too. I think "switch to New Default Save directory" (like WordPerfect 5.0 could do in 1988!) would be a good context menu item.
Probably my fault, but not what I meant either. Save As dialogs will almost always pick the wrong folder unless you store everything in "c:\documents and settings\zsau\my documents", which I don't. But I probably have the write folder open in my file manager--I want a way to quickly make the save as dialog point to where my file manager is, without having to browse the filesystem.
Your suggestion of a context menu would get very unattractive in my circumstance. I'd have ~/Projects/{foo,bar,baz,splat}, ~/UNI/{splodge,quux,quuux,quinx}, ~/{aargh,chicken,antelope,cantaloup} and so on. It could save number-of-clicks, but increase search time (bizarrely, search time in humans seems to be O(n)—even if we're looking for what happens to be the third item in a list, it takes us longer to respond if the list is one hundred items than if it's five).
1. Just click OK. It's not that difficult. If you close the dialog or click Cancel you're telling the application you aren't sure of your changes.
Doesn't solve the problem. Doesn't provide an easy way to test and revert a group of changes. The KDE Control Centre requires that you apply changes to individual sections, rather than everything at once, and this only makes it worse. (If you have to put in a nasty reminder like 'you haven't applied your settings yet. do you want to?', you've probably designed the interface wrong.)
5. Well, for me the open/save dialogs are a hell of a lot better than those you find in GTK+ applications, because they're far more flexible.
I don't want a flexible open/save dialog; I don't want to have to browse the filesystem a million times. I should be able to easily switch to a directory I already have open somewhere else. GTK+ gives me this. KDE doesn't, but should. This is an unsolved problem. (Being a big huge flexible dialog is not a cost in any way, so long as it's not fullscreen so I can use DnD on it properly, so the KDE dialog could be made perfect for me without any cost to you. I like the GTK+ because it has some functionality the KDE one doesn't have, not because it's simple and hides everything.)
6. For me, KDE's integration and consistency far outweigh any minor "problems". In all honesty though it sounds like the Gnome style of sparse options is more suited to your tastes, so you should probably stick with it (I'm assuming that's what your current DE is).
I don't use and don't much like Gnome; and almost every Gnome application I use I've gone into gconf-editor to modify. But KDE otoh has way too many poorly organised options, so it's hard to find what I want. Every time I've tried KDE, I've found something I couldn't work out how to do last time can be done, usually quite easily. Maybe it even makes perfect sense to put the option there—once you know where it goes. But it still takes way too much time to find the first time. (Finding the right setting to tweak is usually easier in gconf-editor than KDE programs in my experience, because in gconf you've only got two dimensions to search through, and good applications put in detailed descriptions.)
I've heard many great things about KDE's architecture, integration etc. and I've wanted to try it, but it makes the things I can already do harder. Every time I have, sooner or later I've reverted to my preferred environment, because there's things I can't do (either because I can't work out how to, or because it doesn't work that way).
Umm... What you've quoted says 'SCO is not entitled to enforce them'. What your PP said is the penalty for misuse is that the holder does not '[get] to enforce for as long as the misuse continues'. Those two statements are entirely harmonious. SCO doesn't get to enforce them. IBM have not said that SCO loses them. They've just said they can't enforce them.
Perhaps there's more in the document you don't link to that actually does agree with what you're saying, but if you're going to contradict and insult someone, it's common practice to actually use evidence in your favor.
(PS: I don't know anything about which side is true. I just have good reading comprehension. You might be right, but if you are you should actually have said why instead of selectively presenting evidence in favor of your PP's claim.)
Regarding the open folders in new windows thing... The way Konqueror is configured on my computer, is that if I press Button-1, it opens in a new window; and if I press Button-2, it opens it in a new tab. But I want Button-2 to open in the same window. Maybe there's some preference I've overlooked (because of the Complexity issue, that's way too likely!), I'll have another look when I'm at home.
Regarding the open & save dialog boxes, you can't do anything in GTK ones, true; but thing is, all I use an open/save dialog box for is to find the right place to open/save a file. Probably I'm already doing something in that folder, so I have the folder open elsewhere. With GTK dialog boxes, I can drag another file in and the dialog box switches—this is the killer feature for me. With KDE dialog boxes, I can do all sorts of things, but to find the right place, I have to browse to the right place again. And again. And again.
I've heard all sorts of great things about the architecture of KDE. I've tried it every significant upgrade. But it's basically this list of things that's pissed me off each time.
It's funny how most of KDE's critics just have no idea what they're talking about, and haven't even used KDE long enough to know how to fix any of the "problems" they have with it.
That basically is my problem with KDE. There's so many ways to fix just about every problem with it that to work it out, you have to spend ages searching. But some problems which I haven't yet worked out the solution to:
OK/Apply/Cancel. Having used GTK and OS X based apps for so long, I forget to do this. I won't ever use a desktop environment that doesn't automatically apply preference changes. Can I do that in KDE?
Open folder in new/same window. I like to browse the filesystem with new folders opened in new windows most of the time, but occasionally I want them opened in the same window. Just about every other file manager I've used lets you do this by Button-1 for new window and Button-2 for same/replace window. But KDE uses Button-2 for a new tab.
Too many menus! Like the problem with preferences, there's just too many menus. My view is that if you have so many menu items you can't fit them all comfortably on a right-click menu, you've probably got too many. One program should do one thing, well.
Customising shortcut keys. It's possible to customise shortcut keys from some central control panel, but with GTK+ you can customise them just by hovering over the relevant menu option in the window and press the key you want. This is an incredibly useful feature, and I'm sure KDE has it, I just don't know how to enable it.
The open & save dialogs. Big and ugly. At least they don't try to be a file manager like Windows ones, but they're missing important features from the ones I like. Like existing at all (my favorite ones just let me use drag-and-drop and that's about it), or letting me drag a file into the Save As/Open dialog box and then switching to the containing folder so that if I can quickly save a file into a folder I'm already looking in--why should I have to browse to the same place twice? (or frequently more, if you're regularly using a save as dialog that keeps defaulting to the wrong place). Actually, if it had this feature, then the fact that they're 'big and ugly' wouldn't bother me at all, it'd just provide a bigger drop target:)
Complexity. You have to spend 'long enough to know how to fix any of the "problems" they have with it'
I have other issues I think, but aside from Konqueror, I haven't used KDE recently.
In any case, I'm really happy with my current DE and I'm not really thinking of using KDE. But considering your comments to your PP, I thought I'd see what your opinion was on some of my problems.
Non-primary platforms? Two can play at that game. Debian has a range of ports with varying completion for platforms that I didn't mention, such as AMD64, Hitatchi SuperH, PowerPC 64, the Hurd and the FreeBSD and NetBSD kernels on various architectures.
Also, I said 'Firefox'. Your link discussed 'SeaMonkey' i.e. the Communicator-style suite.
And for all that, I'm still not sure how to download Mozilla Firefox or SeaMonkey for my PowerPC system other than going for Debian's derivative.
Hmm... When I said 'fork', I'll suppose, I didn't use it in its strictest sense. The Debian Firefox/IceWeasel code is/will be different from the Mozilla Firefox code. That's all I meant. This is more than just an issue about a couple of logos; it's Mozilla trying to ensure they have complete control over any web browser that's named 'Firefox'. (Considering the subthread that's been created, evidently I should've been more careful with my language use.)
I'm unaware of anything that's not implemented in free software for 'arcane political reasons'. A few things aren't there by default for legal reasons i.e. if a distribution included software that plays MP3 or DVD, or Adobe's Flash player, then they would be sued. Fair enough, yes? It's not even as if Windows includes a Flash player by default, either (unless that's changed recently).
There's plenty of software that opens PDFs, and unlike Windows it's usually installed by default. In addition, you can get other software--including the same brand you're used to on Windows if you use an x86 computer--that does it. Fonts also look perfectly good on my Debian computer; in fact, they look a lot better than screenshots of Windows do.
I don't understand why you 'want Linux to win', but that you want it to be exactly the same as Windows. It sounds like you're very happy using Windows; or at least, you like its interface more than you dislike other aspects of it. Why do you want Linux to win, if you don't like it? On the other hand, I really like the interface of my Debian computer. It runs ROX-Filer, so I can drag-and-drop files to copy or move them, and even to save them, so I never accidentally lose files like you can on Windows. I point-and-click to do most things except things you use a command prompt to do under Windows too (run LaTeX) or you can't do under Windows (dl & install software from my distribution's repository). For day-to-day use, the fact that I can't accidentally delete my important programs like C:\WINDOWS\explorer.exe doesn't bother me at all; it's not something I try to do often.
And that completely leaves aside the question of win what? I don't think there's a competition and a judge who will declare whoever has 90 per cent market share in 2010 to be the winner. I'm already running Debian on my computer and I've been using various distributions of GNU/Linux as my main or sole operating system for longer than I'd been using Windows before that. It suits all of my purposes today. Why should I want it changed? Especially today, when Windows users can use file formats like plain text, TeX, HTML, Gnumeric, SVG, XCF or the new Open Document Formats and we can communicate just fine. If they want to screw themselves and use a dangerous operating system, that's their choice.
My conclusion is that Hans Reiser is likely a paranoid schizophrenic.
I would be very surprised if someone who managed to run their own business had paranoid schizophrenia. People with schizophrenia generally have enough trouble holding down a job; and running your own business would probably be too much exposure. Also, being a coder who's managed to write his own filesystem would be another giveway he didn't have schizophrenia; that usually comes with lowered intellectual abilities.
Still, when I was reading that stuff it did come over as nutty. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a delusional disorder; but I would be if he was schizophrenic.
Actually, the Debian version of Firefox contains various patches which the Mozilla people aren't happy about (including security patches--Debian wants to keep versions in Debian/Stable secure, but Mozilla wants everyone to use the latest version). Iceweasel is a fork that doesn't intend to diverge very far from the original codebase, but a fork it is nonetheless.
According to the website for the current release, Firefox is available for Windows, Mac OS X/Universal (i.e. Mac OS X/PPC and Mac OS X/x86) and Linux/i686.
According to the website for the current release, Debian is available for Alpha, ARM, HP PA-RISC, Intel x86, Intel IA64, Motorola 680x0, MIPS, MIPS (DEC), PowerPC, IBM S/390 and SPARC.
It would seem that even if Iceweasel was only available for one operating system, it's still available for more platforms. Maybe less people use the platforms Debian's available for that Firefox isn't, then vice versa, but I certainly can't download a Firefox binary from Mozilla (or, if I can, they've hidden the link well).
Is this something like the feature of Enlightenment when you can drag a drag bar on the edge of a virtual desktop, and see a part of the virtual desktop below it?
Except that each virtual desktop has its own display properties?
And so you could have half of your screen running in 1024x768x32 bit color, and another running in 1280x1024x16 bit color? Is that acutally possible?
Hm. It was originally a reference to window managers, but it seemed repetitive ('In Microsoft Windows, windows manage you!') and I edited it. At this stage it's more about DRM. And window managers, because I cannot stand the Windows window manager.
Which is why of course other distributions will eventually rename Firefox to something else, too, except maybe SuSE and Red Hat (and Slackware which I think has a policy of not patching upstream anyway). And hopefully GNU/Linux users will retaliate by not using Firefox; there's plenty of evidence Mozilla the corporation don't care about us anyway.
If I have it right, I nominated 'Vulpnis', a blend of the Latin words for 'fire' and 'fox' (but backwards, because that's how I believe they do things). If we wanted to go the way of Ekiga and choose unpronouncable names, we could do Vulpgnis too.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox to internet:
If you are for any reason dissatisfied with your Firefox experience, we will gladly refund your money.
Umm... are people not allowed to say 'I won't use this software'? particularly when it's one of the most popular pieces of Free software available? There's absolutely no reason to patronise them.
I'll agree that the theme thing is somewhat trivial and not right for a number one objection, but...
-"The anti phishing is weak!" ---compared to what? The antiphishing in 1.5?
Bad antiphishing could be worse than no antiphishing; this would be enough for me to stop recommending Firefox to non-technical friends and family. Your average naïve computer user who might've been a little vigilant under Firefox 1.5 or Internet Explorer because of all our hard work in warning them about the dangers, might assume that if Firefox doesn't say it's unsafe, then it must be safe. We've all seen how perfectly intelligent and capable people often have trouble understanding how the Internet works and can behave incredibly stupidly as a consequence. We shouldn't help them to be confused.
Instead of putting unreliable antiphishing code into browsers, we need to make sure our browsers always tell the truth (i.e. it's not possible to make the address bar say 'https://www.ebay.com/...' unless you're actually visiting a page on www.ebay.com over HTTPS), and we need to make sure that online services like banks and auction sites that can be trusted always make it clear when you're at their service, by always showing the address bar, and by always using their domain name for their secure services. (A lot fo banks I've used have opened up a new window with no address bar when you go to log in--or at least they did until I forced my browser to never hide it--and some Australian credit unions' online banking services use a domain like 'foo.netteller.com.au' or 'bar.netteller.com.au', for instance; they should use 'foo.com.au' or at worst 'netteller.foo.com.au'.)
-"Extensions did not automagically compatible-ize themselves!"
I don't know how hard it would've been to have kept a compatibility mode, or to have a stable API. I can run software written five years ago on my current operating system. I see no reason on the face of it that plugins shouldn't likewise be compatible. It probably would be worthwhile if they actually had designed their API and the rest of the software so that old plugins can usually keep working between version updates. It's a plausible complaint; but your response is also reasonable.
-"I don't understand the options screen!" BWAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! This can't be serious.
Why not? I don't use Firefox, so I haven't seen the new options screen. But if it is that bad, then Mozilla probably should've actually done some usability testing. It's a reasonable objection to using a particular piece of software. (You might be laughing because you think it's trivial, but Firefox is meant to be used by all and sundry, and should be accessible to the same.)
-"I don't like the RSS thingy! IE does it better!" Where was it again that RSS originated?
Umm... I don't understand why that's relevant. If IE does it better today, then when choosing between some other browser and IE, IE wins (assuming, for the moment, that RSS is your sole basis for choosing a browser). It would be significantly better if Firefox's RSS 'Just Works' as you say for IE, and that all the custom options are on top of that. Customisation should never get in the way of a good set of defaults. I don't know here tho'; I've never got into the RSS thing.
I'll say again that I don't use and don't like Firefox, but I have tended to recommend it to non-technical friends and family running Windows for their safety and security. If I think that Firefox can't be trusted by ommission or commission, then I'll have to reconsider that. The antiphishing thing and the unpatched security vulnerability are both cause for that concern. (On the other hand, I'm not sure what alternative Windows users have. Maybe Opera? I don't have enough experience with it. I doubt people will be happy to use something with bulit-in ads tho.)
Stop karma whoring. It only makes you look, well, like a whore.
Hm, I seem to have been modded '-1 Flamebait' twice. I believe the moderations were unfair, but if I was karma whoring I would've said 'I know I'll be modded down for this, but here's the full text to that link'. I was just posting my opinions. That's what this comment functionality is about, right?
Thus, Debian is finding fault with Mozilla for doing something that Debian does itself. Where I come from, we call this hypocrisy.
No they're not, and no that's not. Debian wanted a licence to the Mozilla trademarks, and they were asking Mozilla to compromise. Mozilla did. Now Mozilla has gone back on their word, and so Debian are going to remove the remaining trademarks from Debian.
Debian also has trademarks, and they've also asked other groups to stop using them inappropriately. Debian does not even distribute their Official Debian logos in Debian, because it would be against their principles. Likewise, now that Mozilla has decided Debian no longer has a licence, Debian are removing the remaining trademarks.
HJAHAHAHAHaHaHaHaHA!!H!H!111ones!
Ooh, such wit. What can I say to that?—you obviously have won the debate! I'll pack up my things and go home now...
From that link: Ultimately, Debian took a position that was consistent with their own policies, and not compatible with some of the exceptions to Mozilla trademark policies that we offered
Oh my god. What is Mozilla trying to do, split the free software world in two? Those who will agree to their shit, and those who will remember the truth. This sort of FUD is completely unacceptable from what should be an upstanding organisation.
Debian's policy has always been that they can't and won't accept a licence specific to them. This applies as much to trademark licences as any other sort. Mozilla insists. Debian's policy has always been that they can't and won't distribute non-free files in the main distributions. Mozilla insists. Debian have always stuck to their policies; it is Mozilla who changes.
And in their rage against an organisation that sticks to its guns, they've even managed to avoid actually pointing to any evidence: the link 'their own policies' points to the Debian front page, which is hardly an acceptable link with that sort of an accusation.
The Mozilla Foundation/Corporation keep up their bad work, and have continued to disgust me more with each passing month; I have lost any respect for them they once had earnt. I post this in a Gecko-based browser (Galeon) only because Konqueror doesn't have any session saving capabilities when not used in KDE, and because I haven't worked out yet how to write my own KHTML-based browser. I will be glad when I can have Mozilla behind me as a sad memory of a once great product.
(Incidentally, this whole episode is a great example of the failure of open source and the success of free software. Open source means nothing; it is empty and void. Software can be developed according to the open source methodology without being free, and everyone can still lose; software can be free without being developed according to the the open source methodology, and everyone can still win. I myself would rather be in awe of a great Cathedral that works, but that I can enter, than be bumped around in some bazar.)
In Ireland you use STV for multi-electorate votes. You either use a computer; you take for ever to count the vote; or you count unfairly. For instance, if you vote for a minor candidate John Minor (that doesn't has a chance of getting elected), then a major candidate Jane Major (just about guaranteed), then another candidate Sean Citizen (who needs the preferences), and you're using the obvious but simple method you can use by hand, your vote will be transferred to your third preferences with its full value, whereas someone who just voted (1) Jane Major (2) Sean Citizen (3) ... will only have the surplus value of their vote transferred.
STV is really complex; when a candidate gets knocked out can mean that everyone still in the runnings and all votes will need to be recounted in order for it to be fair. In Australia, STV elections are counted by computers even though we have the relative luxury (in terms of counting) of Group Voting Tickets ('above the line'), so 'above the line' votes can plausibly be done very easily.
STV is a remarkably fair system if done right (for instance, the maximum number of voters who wan't have a say is (quota - 1), and in practice its usually much smaller); but it's so complex to it right.
(I'm told that the votes are entered into the computers mostly by Europeans on working holiday visas. I have no idea if or how they confirm the votes have been entered propely, so maybe it's European backpackers we have to thank for the Family First Senator, not the Labor Party.)
I don't know about Canada, but in Australia we have a perpetual skills shortage in the bush/outback. You won't get high-tech slashdot jobs, but if you say you want to teach or be a doctor in the middle of nowhere, you'll have a much better chance than getting in if they think you want to live in Melbourne or Sydney.
Ah, we do get Hiluxes Down Under (although they're big utes, not small trucks ;). Nasty of manufacturers to rename their vehicles like that and make me look silly.
In any case, my concern about this whole issue is the fact that it's relatively a waste of money because in order to be valuable, you'd have to keep doing it year after year; $100 million would be a nice start, but once everything's bought, it's quickly going to lose its value. Also, regardless of where the cars are sold, it's going to be of restricted value; I very much doubt there's anything I could to do my car even with a manual...
A Ford Falcon is one of the most common cars/utes on Australian roads. On the other hand, I've never heard of a Toyota Tundra or Honda Fit. Thing about cars is a lot of them aren't actually sold the whole world around. That's the issue your parent poster was talking about, not the fact that there might be some minor changes in each country.
As I say, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on Slashdot, but my interpretation of the 'for as long as' bit was that if SCO's misusing their copyright when trying to sue IBM, they're not going to be able to sue IBM ever on the same grounds, so for all intents and purposes, yes, the loss of enforcement is perpetual. But if SCO decided to change tracks and sue me for copyright infringement because I've got a pirated copy of UNIX on my computer and I'm sharing over P2P[*], then they can because it's a completely different kettle of fish. That's basically how I read the earlier posts in this thread as harmonious.
But I'm completely out of my depth here and will leave it to those who know more.
[*]: I don't and I'm not.
Not everyone can use the closed-source drivers. I can't. I also can't change my video card withot changing my entire computer (actually, I did do that, but then my replacement computer died just outside of warranty). If they released the source code, I would be a lot happier.
Distributions and kernel hackers also have a harder time trying to debug problems if the kernel contains binary blobs. They're better equipped to tell you why.
So it does matter for practical reasons to many people if the source code is there. Why shouldn't we make a noise about it?
(PS: I don't see what's wrong with the title including 'closed-source'. It's true, it is a closed source driver. On the other hand, there is an free driver, which doesn't have the vulnerability. One possible change would be to '... NVIDIA's Linux driver', but everyone knows that's closed-source anyway, so why does it matter either way?)
Conversely, I won't use one that DOES automatically apply preference changes -- because it is FAR too easy to make a mistake you can't readily recover from (like setting text and background to the same colour). I want some sort of "Hey stupid, did you really mean Do THIS?" query *before* changes are applied, just in case That Wasn't What I Meant.
A good user interface will make it hard do something stupid. Not impossible, not getting-in-your-way hard and not hard-to-find. More like riding-your-bike-uphill-against-the-wind hard than where've-I-left-my-keys hard. It'll also make it easy to recover from a stupid change (instant apply dialogs have a 'revert' button (and the thing you changed is probably right under your mouse, too!), but manual apply ones don't. so if you don't realise you've done something stupid, you choose 'apply' (or worse 'OK'), and goodbye to any hope of easily recovering). And instant apply isn't incompatible with warning the user they're about to do something stupid.
And lastly, isn't KDE meant to be the world of infinite configurability =)
Right-click menus that are too long can be helped with grouped submenus. I don't recall seeing this as an issue with KDE, but it's been a while since I looked.
Not what I meant. I was meaning that the maximum number of menu items in a program in total (i.e. including the main menu bar) should be what you can comfortably fit on a right-click menu (with submenus if necessary, but obviously fewer because it becomes harder to navigate). This implies, with good reason, that programs should be small and do one thing well. Not having a filemanager and a web browser in the same program (I never worked that one out, meself.)
IMO "Open Folder in Same Window" should be the default, not something you have to set. Most people simply want to navigate the dirtree, not wind up with 50 open windows.
I don't mean to be negative, but not what I meant. I want to be able to do both, with my mouse, without right-clicking and choosing a special option. I have never wanted to use a tabbed file manager. I would like Button-1 to open in a new window, and Button-2 to open in the same window. I would settle just as easily for the reverse. But KDE can give me Button-1 in a new window or the same one; but Button-2 always opens in a new tab.
Re the Save As reverting to the origin location, I'm frequently annoyed by that too. I think "switch to New Default Save directory" (like WordPerfect 5.0 could do in 1988!) would be a good context menu item.
Probably my fault, but not what I meant either. Save As dialogs will almost always pick the wrong folder unless you store everything in "c:\documents and settings\zsau\my documents", which I don't. But I probably have the write folder open in my file manager--I want a way to quickly make the save as dialog point to where my file manager is, without having to browse the filesystem.
Your suggestion of a context menu would get very unattractive in my circumstance. I'd have ~/Projects/{foo,bar,baz,splat}, ~/UNI/{splodge,quux,quuux,quinx}, ~/{aargh,chicken,antelope,cantaloup} and so on. It could save number-of-clicks, but increase search time (bizarrely, search time in humans seems to be O(n)—even if we're looking for what happens to be the third item in a list, it takes us longer to respond if the list is one hundred items than if it's five).
1. Just click OK. It's not that difficult. If you close the dialog or click Cancel you're telling the application you aren't sure of your changes.
Doesn't solve the problem. Doesn't provide an easy way to test and revert a group of changes. The KDE Control Centre requires that you apply changes to individual sections, rather than everything at once, and this only makes it worse. (If you have to put in a nasty reminder like 'you haven't applied your settings yet. do you want to?', you've probably designed the interface wrong.)
5. Well, for me the open/save dialogs are a hell of a lot better than those you find in GTK+ applications, because they're far more flexible.
I don't want a flexible open/save dialog; I don't want to have to browse the filesystem a million times. I should be able to easily switch to a directory I already have open somewhere else. GTK+ gives me this. KDE doesn't, but should. This is an unsolved problem. (Being a big huge flexible dialog is not a cost in any way, so long as it's not fullscreen so I can use DnD on it properly, so the KDE dialog could be made perfect for me without any cost to you. I like the GTK+ because it has some functionality the KDE one doesn't have, not because it's simple and hides everything.)
6. For me, KDE's integration and consistency far outweigh any minor "problems". In all honesty though it sounds like the Gnome style of sparse options is more suited to your tastes, so you should probably stick with it (I'm assuming that's what your current DE is).
I don't use and don't much like Gnome; and almost every Gnome application I use I've gone into gconf-editor to modify. But KDE otoh has way too many poorly organised options, so it's hard to find what I want. Every time I've tried KDE, I've found something I couldn't work out how to do last time can be done, usually quite easily. Maybe it even makes perfect sense to put the option there—once you know where it goes. But it still takes way too much time to find the first time. (Finding the right setting to tweak is usually easier in gconf-editor than KDE programs in my experience, because in gconf you've only got two dimensions to search through, and good applications put in detailed descriptions.)
I've heard many great things about KDE's architecture, integration etc. and I've wanted to try it, but it makes the things I can already do harder. Every time I have, sooner or later I've reverted to my preferred environment, because there's things I can't do (either because I can't work out how to, or because it doesn't work that way).
Umm... What you've quoted says 'SCO is not entitled to enforce them'. What your PP said is the penalty for misuse is that the holder does not '[get] to enforce for as long as the misuse continues'. Those two statements are entirely harmonious. SCO doesn't get to enforce them. IBM have not said that SCO loses them. They've just said they can't enforce them.
Perhaps there's more in the document you don't link to that actually does agree with what you're saying, but if you're going to contradict and insult someone, it's common practice to actually use evidence in your favor.
(PS: I don't know anything about which side is true. I just have good reading comprehension. You might be right, but if you are you should actually have said why instead of selectively presenting evidence in favor of your PP's claim.)
Regarding the open folders in new windows thing... The way Konqueror is configured on my computer, is that if I press Button-1, it opens in a new window; and if I press Button-2, it opens it in a new tab. But I want Button-2 to open in the same window. Maybe there's some preference I've overlooked (because of the Complexity issue, that's way too likely!), I'll have another look when I'm at home.
Regarding the open & save dialog boxes, you can't do anything in GTK ones, true; but thing is, all I use an open/save dialog box for is to find the right place to open/save a file. Probably I'm already doing something in that folder, so I have the folder open elsewhere. With GTK dialog boxes, I can drag another file in and the dialog box switches—this is the killer feature for me. With KDE dialog boxes, I can do all sorts of things, but to find the right place, I have to browse to the right place again. And again. And again.
I've heard all sorts of great things about the architecture of KDE. I've tried it every significant upgrade. But it's basically this list of things that's pissed me off each time.
That basically is my problem with KDE. There's so many ways to fix just about every problem with it that to work it out, you have to spend ages searching. But some problems which I haven't yet worked out the solution to:
I have other issues I think, but aside from Konqueror, I haven't used KDE recently.
In any case, I'm really happy with my current DE and I'm not really thinking of using KDE. But considering your comments to your PP, I thought I'd see what your opinion was on some of my problems.
Myself, I'd go for mistletoe. A tree-related parasite. That, or a vine, hanging off its source. So yeah, Iceweasel is a vine, plain and simple.
Non-primary platforms? Two can play at that game. Debian has a range of ports with varying completion for platforms that I didn't mention, such as AMD64, Hitatchi SuperH, PowerPC 64, the Hurd and the FreeBSD and NetBSD kernels on various architectures.
Also, I said 'Firefox'. Your link discussed 'SeaMonkey' i.e. the Communicator-style suite.
And for all that, I'm still not sure how to download Mozilla Firefox or SeaMonkey for my PowerPC system other than going for Debian's derivative.
Hmm... When I said 'fork', I'll suppose, I didn't use it in its strictest sense. The Debian Firefox/IceWeasel code is/will be different from the Mozilla Firefox code. That's all I meant. This is more than just an issue about a couple of logos; it's Mozilla trying to ensure they have complete control over any web browser that's named 'Firefox'. (Considering the subthread that's been created, evidently I should've been more careful with my language use.)
I'm unaware of anything that's not implemented in free software for 'arcane political reasons'. A few things aren't there by default for legal reasons i.e. if a distribution included software that plays MP3 or DVD, or Adobe's Flash player, then they would be sued. Fair enough, yes? It's not even as if Windows includes a Flash player by default, either (unless that's changed recently).
There's plenty of software that opens PDFs, and unlike Windows it's usually installed by default. In addition, you can get other software--including the same brand you're used to on Windows if you use an x86 computer--that does it. Fonts also look perfectly good on my Debian computer; in fact, they look a lot better than screenshots of Windows do.
I don't understand why you 'want Linux to win', but that you want it to be exactly the same as Windows. It sounds like you're very happy using Windows; or at least, you like its interface more than you dislike other aspects of it. Why do you want Linux to win, if you don't like it? On the other hand, I really like the interface of my Debian computer. It runs ROX-Filer, so I can drag-and-drop files to copy or move them, and even to save them, so I never accidentally lose files like you can on Windows. I point-and-click to do most things except things you use a command prompt to do under Windows too (run LaTeX) or you can't do under Windows (dl & install software from my distribution's repository). For day-to-day use, the fact that I can't accidentally delete my important programs like C:\WINDOWS\explorer.exe doesn't bother me at all; it's not something I try to do often.
And that completely leaves aside the question of win what? I don't think there's a competition and a judge who will declare whoever has 90 per cent market share in 2010 to be the winner. I'm already running Debian on my computer and I've been using various distributions of GNU/Linux as my main or sole operating system for longer than I'd been using Windows before that. It suits all of my purposes today. Why should I want it changed? Especially today, when Windows users can use file formats like plain text, TeX, HTML, Gnumeric, SVG, XCF or the new Open Document Formats and we can communicate just fine. If they want to screw themselves and use a dangerous operating system, that's their choice.
My conclusion is that Hans Reiser is likely a paranoid schizophrenic.
I would be very surprised if someone who managed to run their own business had paranoid schizophrenia. People with schizophrenia generally have enough trouble holding down a job; and running your own business would probably be too much exposure. Also, being a coder who's managed to write his own filesystem would be another giveway he didn't have schizophrenia; that usually comes with lowered intellectual abilities.
Still, when I was reading that stuff it did come over as nutty. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a delusional disorder; but I would be if he was schizophrenic.
Actually, the Debian version of Firefox contains various patches which the Mozilla people aren't happy about (including security patches--Debian wants to keep versions in Debian/Stable secure, but Mozilla wants everyone to use the latest version). Iceweasel is a fork that doesn't intend to diverge very far from the original codebase, but a fork it is nonetheless.
According to the website for the current release, Firefox is available for Windows, Mac OS X/Universal (i.e. Mac OS X/PPC and Mac OS X/x86) and Linux/i686.
According to the website for the current release, Debian is available for Alpha, ARM, HP PA-RISC, Intel x86, Intel IA64, Motorola 680x0, MIPS, MIPS (DEC), PowerPC, IBM S/390 and SPARC.
It would seem that even if Iceweasel was only available for one operating system, it's still available for more platforms. Maybe less people use the platforms Debian's available for that Firefox isn't, then vice versa, but I certainly can't download a Firefox binary from Mozilla (or, if I can, they've hidden the link well).
Is this something like the feature of Enlightenment when you can drag a drag bar on the edge of a virtual desktop, and see a part of the virtual desktop below it?
Except that each virtual desktop has its own display properties?
And so you could have half of your screen running in 1024x768x32 bit color, and another running in 1280x1024x16 bit color? Is that acutally possible?
Hm. It was originally a reference to window managers, but it seemed repetitive ('In Microsoft Windows, windows manage you!') and I edited it. At this stage it's more about DRM. And window managers, because I cannot stand the Windows window manager.
Which is why of course other distributions will eventually rename Firefox to something else, too, except maybe SuSE and Red Hat (and Slackware which I think has a policy of not patching upstream anyway). And hopefully GNU/Linux users will retaliate by not using Firefox; there's plenty of evidence Mozilla the corporation don't care about us anyway.
If I have it right, I nominated 'Vulpnis', a blend of the Latin words for 'fire' and 'fox' (but backwards, because that's how I believe they do things). If we wanted to go the way of Ekiga and choose unpronouncable names, we could do Vulpgnis too.