Usually, the person who gets hired (70% to 80% of the time) is the person who had a friend or relative in the company. It's called networking, and it has nothing to do with computers or skills.
On thing though: maybe I misunderstood you, but how is Mozilla not the perfect solution to all of the hassles and exploits related to web browsing with Internet Explorer on a Windows system? I switched to Mozilla fulltime shortly after 1.0 came out, and I've been loving it ever since. True, there are a few sites that still need to be viewed with IE, but for 99% of web browsing, Mozilla is everything I could ever ask for in a browser.
I appreciate all of the features of Mozilla (Google search from the address bar, tabbed browsing, popup blocking, etc, etc, etc) so much that I don't love Mozilla because I hate IE, I love Mozilla because it's Mozilla and it's great!
"Then there is the issue of whether I want to hold my hand up in the air when using my mouse in the first place. That has to hurt after a few minutes."
Yes, that is correct; the pain you feel is called exercise.
I suspect many/. readers (myself included) could use a bit more of it.
Think of it: carpal tunnel syndrome replaced by torn rotator cuffs! Whoopee!
First off, I like that you're taking to time to point out what you dislike about Mozilla, rather than simply claiming "It sucks!" That's reasonable and meritworthy, considering the "social milieu" that is/.
I guess you're not getting my point. I don't care why Mozilla is slow. The mere fact that it's slow is enough to get me to remove it from my system. To think that there's a "make run faster" preference somewhere... that's just nuts. If you can make it go faster, you should. It shouldn't be an option, especially one that isn't on by default.
Under Windows, a portion of IE (Windows Explorer) is kept loaded at all times so that the web browser can "magically" launch, nearly instantaneously. However, this means that when you're not using IE to browse the web, you're still losing some memory to it's background processes.
As I understand it, the Mozilla development team felt that users should have a choice as to whether or not they wanted a portion of Mozilla running in the background at all times. For me, a person who uses Mozilla exclusively (because I like it, not because "it isn't IE"), they provided (for Windows, at least) the Quick-Launch feature (Edit > Preferences > Advanced > Enable Quick Launch).
This, more than anything, is evidence that the Mozilla team isn't really interested in building a browser that people will actually want to use. They're just building a browser for themselves.
Mozilla 1.0 is a fully functional technology demo for those interested in seeing what can be done with Mozilla technology, and those who want to create Mozilla-based products and packages. The intended target audience is the development community.
They really aren't trying to win a browser war with IE, but I'm sure they're pleased that they've gotten so much positive press lately, since the 1.0 release. But I think that statement pretty much explains why Mozilla looks & works the way it does, and why it's skinnable, and so forth: it's most definitely not intended as a general-consumption web browser, but rather a development platform for future applications. I'm just glad that I, as a certified member of the unwashed masses, get to use the browser!:)
Advocating tabbed browsing is ignoring one of my best features: I don't like it....It's simpler and faster because Mozilla is such a pig at opening new windows, right?
If you love opening new windows so much, and are complaining about having to go File > New > Navigator Window in Mozilla, then I suggest you learn a very simple hotkey: CTRL + N. All the new windows you could ever want. I'm sure you knew this already, and don't meant to insult your intelligence by suggesting it, but it is the "easy" solution to your problem, no matter which browser you use. (It works in IE too, and the key combo is printed right alongside the "New Navigator" window in the Mozilla submenu).
(3) "Better security and extensibility" is an ironic comment considering we're writing this in context of an article about a security bug. Sounds like Mozilla is calling IE black here.
Actually, the Mozilla development team doesn't seem to spend much time at all thinking about IE, at least as far as I can tell. And the security "hole" we're talking about here is really much, much less severe than many (most?) associated with IE; it's not going to let someone run malicious code. And you have to wonder how many sites would actually try to leverage this hole, and what possible use they'd get from any information gleaned from it...
"Oh, going
back to Slashdot, I see...well, no suprise there, considering you're a Mozilla user..."
The Mozilla project is a failure. It has failed to produce a usable web browser, even after all these years.
Oh, that's just silly. This entire post was read & replied to using Mozilla. I have the Mozilla FAQ open in one tab, the post of yours to which I'm replying in another, and this tab, in which I'm typing my reply. Clearly I'm getting some usability out of this browser.
However, as mentioned before, the point of the Mozilla project is not to produce a web browser, despite your obvious misconception to the contrary. The point is clearly stated in their FAQ above. I think they're achieving their stated objectives admirably, and hence, the project is not a failure.
But if you prefer SmartTags and truly serious security holes, I invite you to continue using IE. It's your choice, and no one (from Mozilla.org, at least) is holding a gun to your head;)
There will always be future applications, protocols, and conventions which make certain existing technologies--including current conventions/standards--obsolete.
I don't expect my website to be accessible to someone via Morse code (a generally obsolete technology for mass worldwide communication), and conversely, I also don't expect that my website will be compatible with some hypothetical future communications technology (holodecks, anyone?)
Of course web standards are important--forget about future compatibility, what about the present? Many sites don't even want to deal with a browser if it's not detected as "IE-something". And this is no recent development--the precedent for "this site works best with " has been around for as long as there's been more than one web browser to choose from.
In fact, until the recent economic downturn in the "high tech" sector, it seemed that most people purchasing websites could care less about their site's forwards, backwards, or even current compatibility with various browsers (let alone W3C standards). They often seemed to plan on completely re-doing their site within 12-18 months anyways...after their company had "magically" grown from 20 to 2000 employees, and their stock likewise.
It's only now, with the Internet bubble imploded, that people are starting to realize that their $300,000 website investment doesn't even have the half-life of a Twinkie. All of the sudden, standards sound like a really good way to protect a website investment--and to (hopefully) ensure some level of forwards compatibility.
But no amount of standards compliance is going to save your website when the holodecks come out. That's life. Zeldman is apparently trying to compete with Katz for the "Master Of All Things Obvious" title.
He said many players of online games become frustrated because their lifestyle limited their interaction with a game world.
Jeez, so are we to infer that what "hardcore" gamers really want is not AI to play their game for them, but rather a La-Z-Boy/toilet combination, with IV drip, a 21" monitor, surround sound system, and T1?
Reminds me a bit too much of the "coppertops" in The Matrix, thanks. I guess I'll have to settle for real life.
I suppose when Disney's first animated films were becoming popular there might have been a similar sort of discussion going on - although this is purely speculation and I'm certainly no film geek.
But it appears not be the case that Mickey Mouse and Steamboat Willy, and all of their spirtual heirs, have failed to cost actual human actors jobs. Shoot, they've actually created jobs for humans: think of all the people who work at Disneyland & Disneyworld wearing overstuffed character costumes and you'll see my point.
And I really doubt we have much to worry about as regards Jar Jar Binks, other than if/when and (hopefully) how soon the hard drives containing his models & animations are formatted for all eternity.
In any event, it would seem that much of the attraction of human actors is that they are, well, people, and also that they provide entertainment value far beyond whatever they convey (or fail to convey) on-screen; in other words, they are celebrities whose personal lives are exposed for our amusement. When they get divorced and remarried for the nth time, we know. When they beat somebody up and go to jail for it, we know. When they make home videos of their lovemaking that end up on the Internet, we of course know.
I think you could argue that the majority of "entertainment value" human actors provide stems from their offscreen antics, and I will respectfully refer you to the nearest supermarket checkout line for evidence of same.
So how are CG characters going to compete with that? Mickey hasn't beat them yet in the seventy odd years he's been bouncing and squeaking around, and he and his kin don't seem to show much promise of being tabloid fare, so I suspect human actors may be around for awhile.
I agree; I have absolutely no understanding of XUL whatsoever, but I love Mozilla and it's UI. In fact, I don't use IE at all for web browsing; I've completely switched to Mozilla and haven't looked back for a second.
Sure, there are occassions where a page will not display "correctly" in Mozilla, and I need to go to IE to see it "right" (in quotes because Mozilla is supposedly much more standards-compliant than IE, hence the pages themselves must be poorly built--i.e. pandering to IE particularities. Shoot, I code pages all the time that look great in both browsers, why can't these clowns?). But for the most part, Mozilla is everything I want in a browser and nothing I don't. I give it 10/10 all the way.
The only other comparable attitude by a consumer population that I can think of exists in the motorcyle world. Harley Davidson riders are passionate about their bikes and The Motor Company, even if they own bikes by other manufacturers. *Most* other bikers really couldn't care if their bikes were Hondas/Suzuki/Yamahas/Triumphs/BMW.
Your statement makes it seem that you really know nothing about motorcycles or motorcyclists. Try going to a Superbike race sometime, and you'll see that people are QUITE passionate about their motorcycles, and use the brand of motorcycle they ride to define their identity.
Each group is convinced that they ride the brand and model of motorcycle which is the fastest, coolest, and sexiest within it's segment--no matter whether it's a Suzuki GSX-1000R, a BMW R1150GS, or a Honda Nighthawk 750. And let's not talk about those Ducati riders, convinced that they ride the motorcycle equivalent of Kate Moss.
These non-Harley-riding motorcyclists most certainly DO care about which bikes make the most torque and horsepower, turn in the fastest lap times in magazine comparos, have the "best/sexiest/coolest" colors and bodywork, and win racing championships.
While Harley-Davidson's PR wing would have you believe otherwise, non H-D bikes are really not just a bunch of equivalent, generic pop-outs that can be substituted for one another at will. Actually, considering the vast number of stock Heritage Softtails I see crawling up and down the main drag of my town, I think you might very well be able to make the opposite case.
Mozilla 1.0.0 had something like 500,000+ downloads within a very short time of it's release. One of the major features/benefits touted by enthusiatic users (myself included) is the ability to turn off unrequested popup windows (which are 99.9% of the time ads). I'd say that these numbers don't bode well for the success of an OS/desktop featuring advertisements.
PONG-Story
on
High Score
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
For those of you wishing to know more about the history of PONG, you should check out PONG-Story. It's got a lot of great information about Ralph Baer, Atari, etc. A must for any PONG aficionados out there!
PressPass spoke to John Manferdelli, general manager of the Windows business unit that is building Palladium. He says that while Microsoft's global outreach to the rest of the computer industry has only just begun, the response so far has been very positive. "The development of Palladium is still in its infancy," he says. "While we realize there are many more constituencies that need to be brought into the process, we have every reason to believe this is a technological breakthrough that the industry can really get behind."
I think they're coming to LinuxWorld in an attempt to get Linux/OSS developers on-board with Palladium. That's the big story, of which.NET is only a part.
To quote from the newsletter reprint on MandrakeSoft's site:
"Joining United Linux could destroy many of the features that have made Mandrake Linux so widely popular, such as our "easy to install, easy to use" approach."
So if UnitedLinux is choosing to base themselves on Debian, and MandrakeSoft's joining UnitedLinux would destroy the "easy to install, easy to use" feature of MDK, then I guess we have to infer that Debian isn't easy to install & use?
That would jibe with what a Debian guy once told me at a LinuxWorld conference. I said "I use Mandrake as my primary desktop now but am interested in getting into Debian and/or Slackware, what should I do?". He said "Maybe you should stick with Mandrake.". LOL! I guess I should've been wearing a LoTR shirt or something:):)
Digital technology has, for the first time in human history, eliminated a scarcity.
Whoa, wait until the power goes out and then see just how scare your digital technology-powered information has become.
Remember, just because we don't have to print books doesn't mean that we don't have to use other resources to keep millions of computers running 24/7--to maintain the stored information in this so-called "eliminated scarcity".
You know, the need to pay those pesky electric bills (and programmers' salaries, etc) might be part of what's propping up the sale of information--not just copyright.
Better yet, for a little irony: what if the person at the other end of the button was Jack Valenti, George Bush, Osama bin Laden? Would your views be different then?
What, no Bill Gates? I know I'm not supposed to complain about lack of options, but come on...that would at least give me something to think about.
** How many Linux/UNIX users would pay how much $$$ for the authoring tool? I doubt there's any financial incentive to develop UNIX versions of the authoring tools.
I dunno, I paid something like +/-$150 for the upgrade from Flash 5 to Flash MX, and I'd surely have done the same if I could've purchased FMX for Linux.
Shoot, Flash & Dreamweaver are the only reasons I still have to have a dual boot system, now that Evolution, OpenOffice and Mozilla are all to 1.0.
I'd buy it in a heartbeat, assuming it was priced the same as the Windows and Mac versions.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually, the person who gets hired (70% to 80% of the time) is the person who had a friend or relative in the company. It's called networking, and it has nothing to do with computers or skills.
;)
Actually, it's called nepotism
Amen to that, brother! :)
On thing though: maybe I misunderstood you, but how is Mozilla not the perfect solution to all of the hassles and exploits related to web browsing with Internet Explorer on a Windows system? I switched to Mozilla fulltime shortly after 1.0 came out, and I've been loving it ever since. True, there are a few sites that still need to be viewed with IE, but for 99% of web browsing, Mozilla is everything I could ever ask for in a browser.
I appreciate all of the features of Mozilla (Google search from the address bar, tabbed browsing, popup blocking, etc, etc, etc) so much that I don't love Mozilla because I hate IE, I love Mozilla because it's Mozilla and it's great!
"Then there is the issue of whether I want to hold my hand up in the air when using my mouse in the first place. That has to hurt after a few minutes."
Yes, that is correct; the pain you feel is called exercise.
I suspect many
Think of it: carpal tunnel syndrome replaced by torn rotator cuffs! Whoopee!
A fuel cell -powered laptop seems like a bomb waiting to happen, but maybe I'm just reactionary and ill-informed.
I'm getting tired of this old chestnut. More expensive than what, exactly?
Um, more expensive than a comparably-capable PC. That's what.
"When does an asteroid become a planet?" reminds me of another wonderful "imponderable":
When does walking become hiking?
At what point can a manmade structure become a nation?
At what point is a nation not a manmade structure?
Hmm, A case a beer huh? Might want to ask for two cases of beer.
I think they better just hope for a six-pack. This *is* CowboyNeal we're talking about, remember?
I guess you're not getting my point. I don't care why Mozilla is slow. The mere fact that it's slow is enough to get me to remove it from my system. To think that there's a "make run faster" preference somewhere... that's just nuts. If you can make it go faster, you should. It shouldn't be an option, especially one that isn't on by default.
Under Windows, a portion of IE (Windows Explorer) is kept loaded at all times so that the web browser can "magically" launch, nearly instantaneously. However, this means that when you're not using IE to browse the web, you're still losing some memory to it's background processes.
As I understand it, the Mozilla development team felt that users should have a choice as to whether or not they wanted a portion of Mozilla running in the background at all times. For me, a person who uses Mozilla exclusively (because I like it, not because "it isn't IE"), they provided (for Windows, at least) the Quick-Launch feature (Edit > Preferences > Advanced > Enable Quick Launch).
This, more than anything, is evidence that the Mozilla team isn't really interested in building a browser that people will actually want to use. They're just building a browser for themselves.
You're absolutely correct. From the Mozilla FAQ:
They really aren't trying to win a browser war with IE, but I'm sure they're pleased that they've gotten so much positive press lately, since the 1.0 release. But I think that statement pretty much explains why Mozilla looks & works the way it does, and why it's skinnable, and so forth: it's most definitely not intended as a general-consumption web browser, but rather a development platform for future applications. I'm just glad that I, as a certified member of the unwashed masses, get to use the browser!
Advocating tabbed browsing is ignoring one of my best features: I don't like it....It's simpler and faster because Mozilla is such a pig at opening new windows, right?
If you love opening new windows so much, and are complaining about having to go File > New > Navigator Window in Mozilla, then I suggest you learn a very simple hotkey: CTRL + N. All the new windows you could ever want. I'm sure you knew this already, and don't meant to insult your intelligence by suggesting it, but it is the "easy" solution to your problem, no matter which browser you use. (It works in IE too, and the key combo is printed right alongside the "New Navigator" window in the Mozilla submenu).
(3) "Better security and extensibility" is an ironic comment considering we're writing this in context of an article about a security bug. Sounds like Mozilla is calling IE black here.
Actually, the Mozilla development team doesn't seem to spend much time at all thinking about IE, at least as far as I can tell. And the security "hole" we're talking about here is really much, much less severe than many (most?) associated with IE; it's not going to let someone run malicious code. And you have to wonder how many sites would actually try to leverage this hole, and what possible use they'd get from any information gleaned from it...
The Mozilla project is a failure. It has failed to produce a usable web browser, even after all these years.
Oh, that's just silly. This entire post was read & replied to using Mozilla. I have the Mozilla FAQ open in one tab, the post of yours to which I'm replying in another, and this tab, in which I'm typing my reply. Clearly I'm getting some usability out of this browser.
However, as mentioned before, the point of the Mozilla project is not to produce a web browser, despite your obvious misconception to the contrary. The point is clearly stated in their FAQ above. I think they're achieving their stated objectives admirably, and hence, the project is not a failure.
But if you prefer SmartTags and truly serious security holes, I invite you to continue using IE. It's your choice, and no one (from Mozilla.org, at least) is holding a gun to your head
On XP, your user.js file goes in the following directory:
n lo ad", "noAccess");
C:\Documents and Settings\\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\default\.slt\
(You will need to enable "Show Hidden File Types" in order to view the Application Data folder)
Just open up Notepad (or whatever) and created a new file, naming it user.js. In order to fix the privacy bug, all you need is the following line:
user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.onu
Hope that helps!
There will always be future applications, protocols, and conventions which make certain existing technologies--including current conventions/standards--obsolete.
I don't expect my website to be accessible to someone via Morse code (a generally obsolete technology for mass worldwide communication), and conversely, I also don't expect that my website will be compatible with some hypothetical future communications technology (holodecks, anyone?)
Of course web standards are important--forget about future compatibility, what about the present? Many sites don't even want to deal with a browser if it's not detected as "IE-something". And this is no recent development--the precedent for "this site works best with " has been around for as long as there's been more than one web browser to choose from.
In fact, until the recent economic downturn in the "high tech" sector, it seemed that most people purchasing websites could care less about their site's forwards, backwards, or even current compatibility with various browsers (let alone W3C standards). They often seemed to plan on completely re-doing their site within 12-18 months anyways...after their company had "magically" grown from 20 to 2000 employees, and their stock likewise.
It's only now, with the Internet bubble imploded, that people are starting to realize that their $300,000 website investment doesn't even have the half-life of a Twinkie. All of the sudden, standards sound like a really good way to protect a website investment--and to (hopefully) ensure some level of forwards compatibility.
But no amount of standards compliance is going to save your website when the holodecks come out. That's life. Zeldman is apparently trying to compete with Katz for the "Master Of All Things Obvious" title.
He said many players of online games become frustrated because their lifestyle limited their interaction with a game world.
Jeez, so are we to infer that what "hardcore" gamers really want is not AI to play their game for them, but rather a La-Z-Boy/toilet combination, with IV drip, a 21" monitor, surround sound system, and T1?
Reminds me a bit too much of the "coppertops" in The Matrix, thanks. I guess I'll have to settle for real life.
Why do they do that?
;)
Because Disney knows you're going to spend the $10 to see the movie either way.
You are a geek. You must comply.
I suppose when Disney's first animated films were becoming popular there might have been a similar sort of discussion going on - although this is purely speculation and I'm certainly no film geek.
But it appears not be the case that Mickey Mouse and Steamboat Willy, and all of their spirtual heirs, have failed to cost actual human actors jobs. Shoot, they've actually created jobs for humans: think of all the people who work at Disneyland & Disneyworld wearing overstuffed character costumes and you'll see my point.
And I really doubt we have much to worry about as regards Jar Jar Binks, other than if/when and (hopefully) how soon the hard drives containing his models & animations are formatted for all eternity.
In any event, it would seem that much of the attraction of human actors is that they are, well, people, and also that they provide entertainment value far beyond whatever they convey (or fail to convey) on-screen; in other words, they are celebrities whose personal lives are exposed for our amusement. When they get divorced and remarried for the nth time, we know. When they beat somebody up and go to jail for it, we know. When they make home videos of their lovemaking that end up on the Internet, we of course know.
I think you could argue that the majority of "entertainment value" human actors provide stems from their offscreen antics, and I will respectfully refer you to the nearest supermarket checkout line for evidence of same.
So how are CG characters going to compete with that? Mickey hasn't beat them yet in the seventy odd years he's been bouncing and squeaking around, and he and his kin don't seem to show much promise of being tabloid fare, so I suspect human actors may be around for awhile.
Have you ever watched a well-voiced anime?
Totally; Captain Gloval in Robotech:
"THUNDERING ASTEROIDS!!!"
That's about as well voiced as it gets, right up there with the intro movie to Zero Wing.
I agree; I have absolutely no understanding of XUL whatsoever, but I love Mozilla and it's UI. In fact, I don't use IE at all for web browsing; I've completely switched to Mozilla and haven't looked back for a second.
Sure, there are occassions where a page will not display "correctly" in Mozilla, and I need to go to IE to see it "right" (in quotes because Mozilla is supposedly much more standards-compliant than IE, hence the pages themselves must be poorly built--i.e. pandering to IE particularities. Shoot, I code pages all the time that look great in both browsers, why can't these clowns?). But for the most part, Mozilla is everything I want in a browser and nothing I don't. I give it 10/10 all the way.
The only other comparable attitude by a consumer population that I can think of exists in the motorcyle world. Harley Davidson riders are passionate about their bikes and The Motor Company, even if they own bikes by other manufacturers. *Most* other bikers really couldn't care if their bikes were Hondas/Suzuki/Yamahas/Triumphs/BMW.
Your statement makes it seem that you really know nothing about motorcycles or motorcyclists. Try going to a Superbike race sometime, and you'll see that people are QUITE passionate about their motorcycles, and use the brand of motorcycle they ride to define their identity.
Each group is convinced that they ride the brand and model of motorcycle which is the fastest, coolest, and sexiest within it's segment--no matter whether it's a Suzuki GSX-1000R, a BMW R1150GS, or a Honda Nighthawk 750. And let's not talk about those Ducati riders, convinced that they ride the motorcycle equivalent of Kate Moss.
These non-Harley-riding motorcyclists most certainly DO care about which bikes make the most torque and horsepower, turn in the fastest lap times in magazine comparos, have the "best/sexiest/coolest" colors and bodywork, and win racing championships.
While Harley-Davidson's PR wing would have you believe otherwise, non H-D bikes are really not just a bunch of equivalent, generic pop-outs that can be substituted for one another at will. Actually, considering the vast number of stock Heritage Softtails I see crawling up and down the main drag of my town, I think you might very well be able to make the opposite case.
Mozilla 1.0.0 had something like 500,000+ downloads within a very short time of it's release. One of the major features/benefits touted by enthusiatic users (myself included) is the ability to turn off unrequested popup windows (which are 99.9% of the time ads). I'd say that these numbers don't bode well for the success of an OS/desktop featuring advertisements.
For those of you wishing to know more about the history of PONG, you should check out PONG-Story. It's got a lot of great information about Ralph Baer, Atari, etc. A must for any PONG aficionados out there!
Here's something from an article titled "Microsoft Seeks Industry-Wide Collaboration for "Palladium" Initiative" I found on Microsoft's website:
.NET is only a part.
PressPass spoke to John Manferdelli, general manager of the Windows business unit that is building Palladium. He says that while Microsoft's global outreach to the rest of the computer industry has only just begun, the response so far has been very positive. "The development of Palladium is still in its infancy," he says. "While we realize there are many more constituencies that need to be brought into the process, we have every reason to believe this is a technological breakthrough that the industry can really get behind."
I think they're coming to LinuxWorld in an attempt to get Linux/OSS developers on-board with Palladium. That's the big story, of which
To quote from the newsletter reprint on MandrakeSoft's site:
:) :)
"Joining United Linux could destroy many of the features that have made Mandrake Linux so widely popular, such as our "easy to install, easy to use" approach."
So if UnitedLinux is choosing to base themselves on Debian, and MandrakeSoft's joining UnitedLinux would destroy the "easy to install, easy to use" feature of MDK, then I guess we have to infer that Debian isn't easy to install & use?
That would jibe with what a Debian guy once told me at a LinuxWorld conference. I said "I use Mandrake as my primary desktop now but am interested in getting into Debian and/or Slackware, what should I do?". He said "Maybe you should stick with Mandrake.". LOL! I guess I should've been wearing a LoTR shirt or something
Digital technology has, for the first time in human history, eliminated a scarcity.
Whoa, wait until the power goes out and then see just how scare your digital technology-powered information has become.
Remember, just because we don't have to print books doesn't mean that we don't have to use other resources to keep millions of computers running 24/7--to maintain the stored information in this so-called "eliminated scarcity".
You know, the need to pay those pesky electric bills (and programmers' salaries, etc) might be part of what's propping up the sale of information--not just copyright.
Better yet, for a little irony: what if the person at the other end of the button was Jack Valenti, George Bush, Osama bin Laden? Would your views be different then?
What, no Bill Gates? I know I'm not supposed to complain about lack of options, but come on...that would at least give me something to think about.
....Guinness
** How many Linux/UNIX users would pay how much $$$ for the authoring tool? I doubt there's any financial incentive to develop UNIX versions of the authoring tools.
I dunno, I paid something like +/-$150 for the upgrade from Flash 5 to Flash MX, and I'd surely have done the same if I could've purchased FMX for Linux.
Shoot, Flash & Dreamweaver are the only reasons I still have to have a dual boot system, now that Evolution, OpenOffice and Mozilla are all to 1.0.
I'd buy it in a heartbeat, assuming it was priced the same as the Windows and Mac versions.