It's geared more for installing the primary binaries on a server share and then installing the minimal install on workstations.
That (again) is the MS single-user philosophy, and it makes no sense at all in a Unix environment.
The Unix way would be install on a server share, and then just running it from the client. Again, no "install" (minimum or otherwise) should be required.
My only gripe with OpenOffice so far has been the annoying quirks in th e UI
My biggest gripe with OO.o (as of 1.1) is that it's still stuck in the MS single-user system world. I hope that 2.0 will break this, and make it a true multi-user application.
I've tried 1.1, and the "multi-user" install is nothing of the sort - in addition to being painful, you still have to "install" it for each user, after you've "installed" it - quite a pain on a multi-user system (try doing it for 20 users - I can only imagine what it must be like for systems with a few hundred users).
Just like every other Unix app, I should be able to install it once, and every user on the system should have access to it - I shouldn't have to do anything for each user.
What I really want to know is why do people in GB think its ok to have to pay to receive a signal out of the air..and why is it ok to pay yearly for it?
The previous poster already answered this:
US TV uses advertising to a degree that Brits (and Europeans generally) wouldn't consider acceptable.
In other words, it's because they'd rather do that than suffer through advertisements.
You really should read to the end of someone's post before replying to it.
I said that I think that the first amendment offers protection to spammers.
The first amendment obviously offers protection to everybody, but only for speech issues.
Spam is *NOT* a speech issue, it's a THEFT issue.
Spammers can say anything they want, but they *CANNOT* force other people to listen, or to force people to pay for that speech.
If you believe that spam is a "free speech" issue, then you must also believe that anyone should be able to go to their local cable station and recieve free airtime to hawk their wares.
Until you can answer the question: "Why should someone have to *PAY* to receive something they did not ask for, and do not want?" your argument falls apart.
this is the sort of thing that separates the men from the boys in the free speech arena
No, it's the sort of thing that separates the morons from the people who actually understand the issue. And you, sadly, are in the former category.
At the end of it, someone is going to buy up what's left, and possibly even with an eye on the case against IBM.
Yeah, right.
Name one company who would have the corporate deathwish to want the losing end of a $1B patent/Lanham act lawsuit from IBM?
Remember that IBM's counterclaims are compulsory - that is, someone can't just buy the "good" part of the lawsuit and ignore the "bad" part - the two are intertwined. MS would have to pay someone a whole hell of a lot of money to touch that.
"Gates: Hey, I'll pay you $50M to hold this potato for a couple of minutes. Oh, don't worry - I'm wearing these welding goggles for fashion, just ignore the glowing."
XHTML1.0/1 valid documents specifically tell the browser not to render in quirks mode. Is that point valid enough for you?
I think that's a point to make your page validate, but not necessarily to XHTML; you can make your page HTML 4.01 Strict and get the best of both worlds.
Not that I agree 100% with arkanes - specifically I disagree with his(her?) comments about foregoing semantic* markup; using semantic* markup really streamlines development, and makes eases maintenance (especially if someone else will be maintaining the site.)
Your anecdote about google rankings is intriguing though - do you have anything else to support it?
All I got when I complained their wasn't any tools to help setup some fairly basic netowrking options
So, you *complained* that someone wasn't doing something for you for free, and people were dismissive - and you were surprised?
Here's a tip for you: don't complain. When you complain you come off as a whiny brat. If something you need doesn't exist, either ask someone *nicely* if it could be included (or when they're planning to implement it.)
Most networking setup doesn't require knowledge of C or C++; shell/perl would probably do.
four or five years later were still sitting aroudn waiting for that sorta thing
To quote Tonto, what do you mean by "we", kemosabe?
I find it really funny
It's funny because you alienate people, and then they *don't* do what you want them to? Yes, you're right it is funny - but it's probably not funny in the way that you think.
Certain measurable variables are linked to good health, and therefore our genes are programmed to see them as beautifull.
This is true to *some* degree - however the original poster is correct (at least with regard to his specific example.)
With regards to weight, for example - fat was once thought of as desirable. If you were fat, it means you were well-fed, which meant you were wealthy. Being wealthy means you were able to provide for your offspring.
Same goes for suntans. A suntan meant you were poor, because you had to work outside. Rich people had no tan, because they didn't have to spend all day in the sun. It's only *very* recently (the last 80 or 90 years - as the bulk of the workforce moved to working from outdoors to indoors) that a tan became a desirable trait.
long hair
BZZT. Wrong. Long hair is considered attractive on females because it's a *differentiator*, not because of genetic cues. If it was a genetic cue, then long hair on *men* would be considered attractive too.
The idea is that a society will emphasize a difference (even if it's an artificial difference) between the sexes; basically it's considered attractive for a woman to have long hair because men have short hair (which began with the Romans - Roman soldiers cut their hair short because long hair is something that could be used against you in battle.)
CompTIA is the same people you have to pay to get your A+ certification - so many/.'ers are actually supporting the pro-patent lobby through their A+ certification.
Most scientific conclusions are made without direct eyewitness evidence.
Which might have some bearing if this was a scientific study.
As another poster here put it "the plural of anecdote is not data".
Making conclusions by studying the effects of things is valid from a scientific point of view.
If you read the story, it's *not* scientific - they didn't actually do any testing. Nothing. Nada. Zip. All they did was *imagine* two *theoretical* servers.
Now, if your test of whether something is scientific or not is "can someone imagine it?", then you're right - but you also have to believe that there is scientific proof of dragons, faeries, faster-than-light spaceships, and that the moon is made of cheese... but personally, I'm just not ready for that.
Most OSS people would never recognize a security hole in a program.
Which just goes to prove my point. But the question isn't whether "some" person could recognize a security hole, but whether *THIS ONE SPECIFIC PERSON* could.
See, this guy was quoted as saying "MS has more secure code" - but unless he's actually *seen* it (and, as you pointed out, is capable of distinguishing between secure and insecure code), how can he possibly know?
Body: The SCO Group (formerly NASDAQ:SCOX) has decided to move from its' longtime home on the NASDAQ, to online auction house EBay. They will also move from electronic record keeping to issuing stock certificates. SCO CEO Darl McBride said of the move "we think this will more accurately reflect our value in the marketplace, and allow us the opportunity to continue aggressively pursuing infringements against our intellectual property. Oh yeah - cash, certified cheque, or money order only, no refunds, buyer pays shipping."
A Linux enthusiast at the RSA Conference in San Francisco has reluctantly concluded that Microsoft produces more secure code than its open source rivals.
Umm, so MS showed him their source code? I find that a little hard to believe.
If he can't see the source, how can he make any determination at all?
Red -- Stop driving / Stop using the application permanently
So, when you reach a red light, you put your car into park, turn off the engine, get out and walk?
Yellow -- Prepare to stop / Stop using the application momentarily
"prepare to stop" - you mean I have to click the yellow button to tell the application I'm about to stop using it? News for you: when I want to "stop using the application momentarily", I just *STOP USING THE APPLICATION MOMENTARILY* - I don't click something.
Green -- Go / Use only the application
So I can use another car if the light is yellow or red?
If you can't see how they map to each other, I don't really know what to say....
Now that someone *tells* me how they relate, it makes an odd kind of sense, but that's pretty much my point - *COLORS ARE NOT INTUITIVE*
I don't think so - my post is based on firsthand observation.
It's not that the buttons function exactly like traffic lights, but that it uses a paradigm that people are already somewhat familar with to help people know what to do.
That's my point - there is no paradigm; no parallel whatsoever.
When I used OSX, I looked at the buttons and think "OK, which one is minimize, and which one is close?" The colors were *completely* useless to me, because they weren't intuitive. I just had to guess what each one did, because there was no other way to find out - no arrows or X'es or anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, I'm downloading the beta now.
It's geared more for installing the primary binaries on a server share and then installing the minimal install on workstations.
That (again) is the MS single-user philosophy, and it makes no sense at all in a Unix environment.
The Unix way would be install on a server share, and then just running it from the client. Again, no "install" (minimum or otherwise) should be required.
My only gripe with OpenOffice so far has been the annoying quirks in th e UI
My biggest gripe with OO.o (as of 1.1) is that it's still stuck in the MS single-user system world. I hope that 2.0 will break this, and make it a true multi-user application.
I've tried 1.1, and the "multi-user" install is nothing of the sort - in addition to being painful, you still have to "install" it for each user, after you've "installed" it - quite a pain on a multi-user system (try doing it for 20 users - I can only imagine what it must be like for systems with a few hundred users).
Just like every other Unix app, I should be able to install it once, and every user on the system should have access to it - I shouldn't have to do anything for each user.
This ban effectively says everyone under 18 is not conpetent enough to know that murder is wrong.
Geez, hyperbolize much?
The ban says no such thing. It says that everyone under 18 *can't be executed* - it doesn't say they can't be tried, conviced, and sent to jail.
What I really want to know is why do people in GB think its ok to have to pay to receive a signal out of the air..and why is it ok to pay yearly for it?
The previous poster already answered this:
US TV uses advertising to a degree that Brits (and Europeans generally) wouldn't consider acceptable.
In other words, it's because they'd rather do that than suffer through advertisements.
You really should read to the end of someone's post before replying to it.
Of course there's a difference - that's pretty much his whole point.
I said that I think that the first amendment offers protection to spammers.
The first amendment obviously offers protection to everybody, but only for speech issues.
Spam is *NOT* a speech issue, it's a THEFT issue.
Spammers can say anything they want, but they *CANNOT* force other people to listen, or to force people to pay for that speech.
If you believe that spam is a "free speech" issue, then you must also believe that anyone should be able to go to their local cable station and recieve free airtime to hawk their wares.
Until you can answer the question: "Why should someone have to *PAY* to receive something they did not ask for, and do not want?" your argument falls apart.
this is the sort of thing that separates the men from the boys in the free speech arena
No, it's the sort of thing that separates the morons from the people who actually understand the issue. And you, sadly, are in the former category.
Sweet jebus, put up a torrent tracker and post the link!
.. will be something about $600.00 per license violation and millions of lines of infringing code.
.. is because NASDAQ is the exchange that MS is on, and MS threatened to move to a different one if they didn't switch to Windows.
At the end of it, someone is going to buy up what's left, and possibly even with an eye on the case against IBM.
Yeah, right.
Name one company who would have the corporate deathwish to want the losing end of a $1B patent/Lanham act lawsuit from IBM?
Remember that IBM's counterclaims are compulsory - that is, someone can't just buy the "good" part of the lawsuit and ignore the "bad" part - the two are intertwined. MS would have to pay someone a whole hell of a lot of money to touch that.
"Gates: Hey, I'll pay you $50M to hold this potato for a couple of minutes. Oh, don't worry - I'm wearing these welding goggles for fashion, just ignore the glowing."
XHTML1.0/1 valid documents specifically tell the browser not to render in quirks mode. Is that point valid enough for you?
I think that's a point to make your page validate, but not necessarily to XHTML; you can make your page HTML 4.01 Strict and get the best of both worlds.
Not that I agree 100% with arkanes - specifically I disagree with his(her?) comments about foregoing semantic* markup; using semantic* markup really streamlines development, and makes eases maintenance (especially if someone else will be maintaining the site.)
Your anecdote about google rankings is intriguing though - do you have anything else to support it?
*god I hate that word.
All I got when I complained their wasn't any tools to help setup some fairly basic netowrking options
So, you *complained* that someone wasn't doing something for you for free, and people were dismissive - and you were surprised?
Here's a tip for you: don't complain. When you complain you come off as a whiny brat. If something you need doesn't exist, either ask someone *nicely* if it could be included (or when they're planning to implement it.)
Most networking setup doesn't require knowledge of C or C++; shell/perl would probably do.
four or five years later were still sitting aroudn waiting for that sorta thing
To quote Tonto, what do you mean by "we", kemosabe?
I find it really funny
It's funny because you alienate people, and then they *don't* do what you want them to? Yes, you're right it is funny - but it's probably not funny in the way that you think.
"Perhaps he was dictating?" :o)
Wrong!
No, actually he's not.
Certain measurable variables are linked to good health, and therefore our genes are programmed to see them as beautifull.
This is true to *some* degree - however the original poster is correct (at least with regard to his specific example.)
With regards to weight, for example - fat was once thought of as desirable. If you were fat, it means you were well-fed, which meant you were wealthy. Being wealthy means you were able to provide for your offspring.
Same goes for suntans. A suntan meant you were poor, because you had to work outside. Rich people had no tan, because they didn't have to spend all day in the sun. It's only *very* recently (the last 80 or 90 years - as the bulk of the workforce moved to working from outdoors to indoors) that a tan became a desirable trait.
long hair
BZZT. Wrong. Long hair is considered attractive on females because it's a *differentiator*, not because of genetic cues. If it was a genetic cue, then long hair on *men* would be considered attractive too.
The idea is that a society will emphasize a difference (even if it's an artificial difference) between the sexes; basically it's considered attractive for a woman to have long hair because men have short hair (which began with the Romans - Roman soldiers cut their hair short because long hair is something that could be used against you in battle.)
CompTIA is the same people you have to pay to get your A+ certification - so many /.'ers are actually supporting the pro-patent lobby through their A+ certification.
Just something to think about.
Most scientific conclusions are made without direct eyewitness evidence.
Which might have some bearing if this was a scientific study.
As another poster here put it "the plural of anecdote is not data".
Making conclusions by studying the effects of things is valid from a scientific point of view.
If you read the story, it's *not* scientific - they didn't actually do any testing. Nothing. Nada. Zip. All they did was *imagine* two *theoretical* servers.
Now, if your test of whether something is scientific or not is "can someone imagine it?", then you're right - but you also have to believe that there is scientific proof of dragons, faeries, faster-than-light spaceships, and that the moon is made of cheese... but personally, I'm just not ready for that.
Most OSS people would never recognize a security hole in a program.
Which just goes to prove my point. But the question isn't whether "some" person could recognize a security hole, but whether *THIS ONE SPECIFIC PERSON* could.
See, this guy was quoted as saying "MS has more secure code" - but unless he's actually *seen* it (and, as you pointed out, is capable of distinguishing between secure and insecure code), how can he possibly know?
You can be allowed to look at Microsoft's source. Governments can do this and some other people too.
No, I can't be.
Somehow I doubt that "a linux fan" (which is how he's described) would be given such grace.
Governments, Major corporations. Not one amateur "linux fan"
Headline: SCOX CHANGES EXCHANGE
Body: The SCO Group (formerly NASDAQ:SCOX) has decided to move from its' longtime home on the NASDAQ, to online auction house EBay. They will also move from electronic record keeping to issuing stock certificates. SCO CEO Darl McBride said of the move "we think this will more accurately reflect our value in the marketplace, and allow us the opportunity to continue aggressively pursuing infringements against our intellectual property. Oh yeah - cash, certified cheque, or money order only, no refunds, buyer pays shipping."
Got back an error message "The stock is either ineligible to be shorted or no shares are available to short."
IIRC that's because the exchange (or possibly the SEC?) won't allow shorts if the value of the stock is less than $5.
A Linux enthusiast at the RSA Conference in San Francisco has reluctantly concluded that Microsoft produces more secure code than its open source rivals.
Umm, so MS showed him their source code? I find that a little hard to believe.
If he can't see the source, how can he make any determination at all?
Red -- Stop driving / Stop using the application permanently
So, when you reach a red light, you put your car into park, turn off the engine, get out and walk?
Yellow -- Prepare to stop / Stop using the application momentarily
"prepare to stop" - you mean I have to click the yellow button to tell the application I'm about to stop using it? News for you: when I want to "stop using the application momentarily", I just *STOP USING THE APPLICATION MOMENTARILY* - I don't click something.
Green -- Go / Use only the application
So I can use another car if the light is yellow or red?
If you can't see how they map to each other, I don't really know what to say....
Now that someone *tells* me how they relate, it makes an odd kind of sense, but that's pretty much my point - *COLORS ARE NOT INTUITIVE*
I believe you are missing the point.
I don't think so - my post is based on firsthand observation.
It's not that the buttons function exactly like traffic lights, but that it uses a paradigm that people are already somewhat familar with to help people know what to do.
That's my point - there is no paradigm; no parallel whatsoever.
When I used OSX, I looked at the buttons and think "OK, which one is minimize, and which one is close?" The colors were *completely* useless to me, because they weren't intuitive. I just had to guess what each one did, because there was no other way to find out - no arrows or X'es or anything.