I personally like url completion, and I have no idea why they removed it from the unix versions - maybe because "unix" people like command lines, etc?
With IE4, the autocomplete works fine for me, if it gets it right, I hit return and I'm happy. I don't like the IE5 version, because it's now changed, I looked at it, started a url "slash" and it gave me a drop down list including slashdot. True to habit, I hit return, but it didn't autocompete! you had to manually select the option from the drop down.
It's the fiddley changes in user inerface that really gets to me about some MS products, especially when you have to alternate between them. you get used of doing things quickly, and changing things makes it worse Two examples (apart from the autocomplete above)
to logout (win 95) (ctrl-esc U - l) in win98 logout is now a top level option in the dos editor a search replace under win95 is alt - s - r (alt search replacE) under NT it's alt - s -c (alt search change)
Actually, we do call the companys for support, but in a roundabout way.
If a card doesn't work for a windows user, they ask their retailer, search on the suppliers web site for the latest drivers, etc, and hence they get noticed by the suppliers.
Linux users however, when a card doesn't work, check out kernel.org, or post to a newsgroup asking for info. Chances are there is work in progress on the card, and they download a updated kernel and away they go, unnoticed by the suppliers.
But where do the kernel developers go for support or information on the card? They have to get the card information from somewhere, be that released specifications, trial and error, or whaever. But the best way is to ask the company involved for specs so they can write a efficent and correct driver.
In both cases, people are asking the company for information, but the difference is that in the first case, its 100,000 people asking for a win9x driver, and in the latter it's say, half a dozen developers asking for technical specs.
This impacts their thinking in two ways a) Many more people are asking *directly* for 9x support b) the Linux people are asking for very detailed info, which companys are still reluctant to release.
We have to convince the people at the top of two things
a) The linux device driver distribution is more indirect than the windows one, but the amount of *end users* would be comparable. b) If they release the specifications in plenty of time, they won't have to "support" linux - we'll have already done it!
If you read their performance page, it says that the various systems are at "peak performance" So, by publishing this report as it was they are *certifing* that linux was running at peak performance And, several of the changes they made, appeared to even reduce the out of box performance So, are they *certifing* something that is obviously (and knowingly) false?
So, here we have a report on performance, where is seems to be clear that the linux box was running nowhere near its performance peak, but Mindcraft by publishing this report are certifing that it was at "peak performanance"
If it can be clearly shown that they are certifing something that is false, could they be forced to retract the "certified" report?
>But what I think is important is Consensus... >this is what standards were originally about. >If we can get consesus about things, great. What >we don't need is another "standard".
Consensus is a good way of putting it, but for consensus to work properly, it must be documented somewhere so it can easily be referred to.
A imposed standard is contrary to the "best strategy will win" basis in linux, and it's free forming nature, but a consensus is a result of free software, where multiple idea can, and will, converge on the best solution naturally.
To me, standards like the FHS, etc, are like the "order" part of "law and order". For example, there is nothing fundmently wrong with driving on the right or left of the road. However, because of the number of users, one side must be chosen, not because it's "correct", but because one must be chosen to avoid chaos.
On the flip side, there are other places where standardising on one idea is a bad thing, and could lead to stagnation. GNOME and KDE have lots of "rivaliary" between them, and I think the speed of development results partially from that.
Of course, the hardest part, is deciding which parts need to be constant, and which parts need to have competition to spur them on.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally like url completion, and I have no idea why they removed it from the unix versions - maybe because "unix" people like command lines, etc?
With IE4, the autocomplete works fine for me, if it gets it right, I hit return and I'm happy.
I don't like the IE5 version, because it's now changed, I looked at it, started a url "slash" and it gave me a drop down list including slashdot. True to habit, I hit return, but it didn't autocompete! you had to manually select the option from the drop down.
It's the fiddley changes in user inerface that really gets to me about some MS products, especially when you have to alternate between them. you get used of doing things quickly, and changing things makes it worse
Two examples (apart from the autocomplete above)
to logout (win 95) (ctrl-esc U - l) in win98 logout is now a top level option
in the dos editor a search replace under win95 is
alt - s - r (alt search replacE)
under NT it's alt - s -c (alt search change)
grrr
--
>Linux users in general don't call for support.
Actually, we do call the companys for support, but in a roundabout way.
If a card doesn't work for a windows user, they ask their retailer, search on the suppliers web site for the latest drivers, etc, and hence they get noticed by the suppliers.
Linux users however, when a card doesn't work, check out kernel.org, or post to a newsgroup asking for info. Chances are there is work in progress on the card, and they download a updated kernel and away they go, unnoticed by the suppliers.
But where do the kernel developers go for support or information on the card? They have to get the card information from somewhere, be that released specifications, trial and error, or whaever. But the best way is to ask the company involved for specs so they can write a efficent and correct driver.
In both cases, people are asking the company for information, but the difference is that in the first case, its 100,000 people asking for a win9x driver, and in the latter it's say, half a dozen developers asking for technical specs.
This impacts their thinking in two ways
a) Many more people are asking *directly* for 9x support
b) the Linux people are asking for very detailed info, which companys are still reluctant to release.
We have to convince the people at the top of two things
a) The linux device driver distribution is more indirect than the windows one, but the amount of *end users* would be comparable.
b) If they release the specifications in plenty of time, they won't have to "support" linux - we'll have already done it!
--
If you read their performance page, it says that the various systems are at "peak performance"
So, by publishing this report as it was they are *certifing* that linux was running at peak performance
And, several of the changes they made, appeared to even reduce the out of box performance
So, are they *certifing* something that is obviously (and knowingly) false?
On Mindcrafts Reports Page They say "our .. reports give you the peak performance of various systems"
Many things were pointed out here and elsewhere, that changes they made *reduced* the performance of the Linux setup
Microsoft addmitted, via Ian Hatton, that the "NT box was better tuned than the the Linux Box
So, here we have a report on performance, where is seems to be clear that the linux box was running nowhere near its performance peak, but Mindcraft by publishing this report are certifing that it was at "peak performanance"
If it can be clearly shown that they are certifing something that is false, could they be forced to retract the "certified" report?
Now, *That* would be nice PR
>But what I think is important is Consensus...
>this is what standards were originally about.
>If we can get consesus about things, great. What
>we don't need is another "standard".
Consensus is a good way of putting it, but for consensus to work properly, it must be documented somewhere so it can easily be referred to.
A imposed standard is contrary to the "best strategy will win" basis in linux, and it's free forming nature, but a consensus is a result of free software, where multiple idea can, and will, converge on the best solution naturally.
To me, standards like the FHS, etc, are like the "order" part of "law and order".
For example, there is nothing fundmently wrong with driving on the right or left of the road.
However, because of the number of users, one side must be chosen, not because it's "correct", but because one must be chosen to avoid chaos.
On the flip side, there are other places where standardising on one idea is a bad thing, and could lead to stagnation. GNOME and KDE have lots of "rivaliary" between them, and I think the speed of development results partially from that.
Of course, the hardest part, is deciding which parts need to be constant, and which parts need to have competition to spur them on.
>You left out Windows 98, Second Edition.
:)
>Yeah, I think its a strange name, too.
Well, it could be a possible Year 2k fix, just call next year "year 1999, second edition"
A service pack for calanders would be an idea to stop all the delays. To still ship mid 1999, you just redfine when 1999 ends
Hmmm, Then the year 2036 issue could become the "year 1999 v5.6, SP4" problem!
--