The Mozilla review was like a movie review. Jaded reviewer nit-picking on little details that most movie-goers/browser users haven't a clue about. I've just been using Mozilla since the 1.0 release posted on/. First crack at most buttons got me what I wanted. Big pluses were:
a) same browser on _all_ my systems Linux/Windows b) no third party program to kill popups.
The details on look, feel, rendering, etc. are only noticed by the real pros (read minority). Everyone else sees something that gets the job done. And Mozilla gets the job done. I'm sold.
"With open source you have the source, so you can do something about bugs, you can fix them. And you can also look for potential issues in the code. You are in control of your own security...."
Maybe _you_ are. I don't code (I'm skilled in other ways). I can only hope with open source that someone finds my problems important or interesting enough to fix.
Re:neo artists ... Not Off Topic
on
Version Fatigue
·
· Score: 1
Not a score (0)! This is so _on_ topic for the following reasons:
a) It isn't that engineers are the new artists. It's that _software_ engineers seem to see themselves as "code artists". This is the problem with the field and why it wears the term "engineering" poorly.
b) There is still no true discipline or self-governance (the hallmark of a profession). Because it wears the moniker of "engineering" it gets grouped with the other engineeering disciplines. But it doesn't get treated like them. Ask any civil engineer how closely they are watched by their professional organizations. Until some form of discipline can be introduced you will get a product as inconsistent as you would expect from... an artist.
But the future looks dim. The up and coming coders of the future are being weaned on the content of forums like/. where, frankly there, is more talk of anarchy then of being professional and acknowledging that maybe, sometimes, there have to be rules, guidelines, and _enforced_ standards.
The map from gene to protein sequence is _not_ understood. That would imply that we can map DNA sequence to protein structure. We cannot. We have various ways of approximating it which means _sometimes_ we get _close_ but that's it. It is still one of the open questions. Mind you, there seems to be several levels of granularity being discussed here i.e. DNA sequence, protein production, protein interaction within the cell, etc. At what level is the CA model appropriate?
Well, what would be a reasonable price? For that matter, since value is often tied to cost in our society (e.g. $0 = 0 value), what would you pay for your fav Linux distro?
Me? I'd not pay more than $100 for any Win flavour without feeling cheated. And the $75 I spent on SUSE a few years ago has repaid itself sooo many times.
Slashdot Mirror
... and Iraq-gemony, Afghan-gemony, Canada-gemony, etc. Cut the net into little boxes and stop this rampaging, unfettered global communication.
The Mozilla review was like a movie review. Jaded reviewer nit-picking on little details that most movie-goers/browser users haven't a clue about. I've just been using Mozilla since the 1.0 release posted on /. First crack at most buttons got me what I wanted. Big pluses were:
a) same browser on _all_ my systems Linux/Windows
b) no third party program to kill popups.
The details on look, feel, rendering, etc. are only noticed by the real pros (read minority). Everyone else sees something that gets the job done. And Mozilla gets the job done. I'm sold.
"With open source you have the source, so you can do something about bugs, you can fix them. And you can also look for potential issues in the code. You are in control of your own security. ..."
Maybe _you_ are. I don't code (I'm skilled in other ways). I can only hope with open source that someone finds my problems important or interesting enough to fix.
Not a score (0)! This is so _on_ topic for the following reasons:
... an artist.
/. where, frankly there, is more talk of anarchy then of being professional and acknowledging that maybe, sometimes, there have to be rules, guidelines, and _enforced_ standards.
a) It isn't that engineers are the new artists. It's that _software_ engineers seem to see themselves as "code artists". This is the problem with the field and why it wears the term "engineering" poorly.
b) There is still no true discipline or self-governance (the hallmark of a profession). Because it wears the moniker of "engineering" it gets grouped with the other engineeering disciplines. But it doesn't get treated like them. Ask any civil engineer how closely they are watched by their professional organizations. Until some form of discipline can be introduced you will get a product as inconsistent as you would expect from
But the future looks dim. The up and coming coders of the future are being weaned on the content of forums like
The map from gene to protein sequence is _not_ understood. That would imply that we can map DNA sequence to protein structure. We cannot. We have various ways of approximating it which means _sometimes_ we get _close_ but that's it. It is still one of the open questions. Mind you, there seems to be several levels of granularity being discussed here i.e. DNA sequence, protein production, protein interaction within the cell, etc. At what level is the CA model appropriate?
re " ...The price is insane though ..."
Well, what would be a reasonable price? For that matter, since value is often tied to cost in our society (e.g. $0 = 0 value), what would you pay for your fav Linux distro?
Me? I'd not pay more than $100 for any Win flavour without feeling cheated. And the $75 I spent on SUSE a few years ago has repaid itself sooo many times.