...that this would be headlined the same day that Adobe Apollo is released in first alpha form.
Let's see, the similarities...
-- Cross-platform runtime? Check. (No Linux for Apollo yet but will be soon.) -- XML-based UI description language? Check. -- ECMA-based standard scripting language to drive it? Check. -- Robust HTML engine? Check.
On the other hand...
-- High quality IDE for developing apps? -- High quality video and multimedia support?
A Linux version is absolutely going to happen. It was originally scheduled to be in the first release, but Flash Player 9 for Linux ended up delayed, which forced the Apollo team to change their plans. You can definitely expect Linux parity in the long run.
First, the "manually editing" construct is disingenuous in that it suggests some sort of onerous labour that most folks don't already do on a daily basis in a wordprocessor. I can't recall anyone complaining about "manually editing" a Word file.
Except that making a typo when editing the Word file won't prevent you from re-opening the Word file and fixing it. Making a typo when editing (say) xorg.conf can clobber you into text-only mode. Hope you know vim, and remembered to sudo first.
And second, *nix systems are built around the concept of a terminal and files.
I'm glad you understand that, but present-day desktop systems have done their best to eradicate that metaphor in favor of the Windows-ish view of the world, in which "terminal" has been banished in favor of "graphical presentation". Linux (et al) may really be that way under the surface, but then, so is OS X, and it's managed to banish the terminal-and-files metaphor to a ghetto that only developers need to enter. I submit to you that this is a good thing.
The second option is hard to follow without a series of screenshots, isn't it?;-)
At the same time... I recently sold my last manual transmission car for an automatic. Manuals used to have a nice advantage in terms of reliability and efficiency, but newer 5-speed autos pretty much don't give up anything significant there, and they are way easier to deal with in the hell of traffic that is the Bay Area. (Sure, they cost a bit more, but I'm willing to spend the bucks.)
Does this mean I'm a loser for taking advantage of improvements in technology? Or does it mean that the baseline standards have shifted?
Back in the Windows 3.1 days, editing WIN.INI (or xorg.conf, etc) was standard operating procedure... but that was then; this is now. Expectations have shifted.
As a mainstream user? Pretty much, no, not that I can recall.
(For my development work? Sure, yeah, all the time. But then I get paid to do this. My mom wants it to just work. The odds that she could use vim to edit xorg.conf when the it's broken are, well, pretty slim.)
Sure, there are occasional odd bits on the "mainstream" systems too, but in my experience they are extraordinarily few and far between.
Look, all I'm saying is that if you want Linux to remain a developer-oriented OS, then the status quo is fine. But to truly penetrate the mainstream, you either have to understand the non-developer mindset ("typing commands is confusing"), or convert all users to the developer mindset ("boiling the ocean").
reconfiguring it when you upgrade your graphics cards isn't a particularly difficult thing to do
Bzzt, wrong answer.
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
If you want Linux to be mainstream-friendly, one of the absolute must-haves is that the user must NEVER EVER EVER, any any circumstances, have to either (1) edit a text config file by hand, or (2) use the command line.
No exceptions, no "most of the time" situation, no "power users only" weasel words. Config files and command lines are OK for developers, but not for mainstream users -- end of story.
Also, Adobe is still unable to provide decent compression on the PNGs its software generates
Not so. Fireworks has always had one of the best PNG compressors of any editing app. (You may be fooled by its native file format, which is PNG with a ton of metadata embedded... exporting as a PNG will lose the metadata but make it WAY smaller.)
A google for "pngcrush fireworks" turns up many such references, e.g.,
Maybe the "religion" gene is neither helpful nor harmful, but linked to other useful genes (other higher brain function, perhaps)?
Sort of how blind cave-fish aren't being selected for blindness, so much as being selected for other traits which happen to have blindness as a side-effect?
Slashdot Mirror
...that this would be headlined the same day that Adobe Apollo is released in first alpha form.
Let's see, the similarities...
-- Cross-platform runtime? Check. (No Linux for Apollo yet but will be soon.)
-- XML-based UI description language? Check.
-- ECMA-based standard scripting language to drive it? Check.
-- Robust HTML engine? Check.
On the other hand...
-- High quality IDE for developing apps?
-- High quality video and multimedia support?
Hmmm....
ECMAScript 4 is going to be (essentially) a superset of ActionScript 3, which is (essentially) a superset of ECMAScript 3 (aka "JavaScript").
A Linux version is absolutely going to happen. It was originally scheduled to be in the first release, but Flash Player 9 for Linux ended up delayed, which forced the Apollo team to change their plans. You can definitely expect Linux parity in the long run.
without proper sandboxing, as Adobe doesn't like the concept
You must speak from a complete lack of knowledge of working in Flash, which is strongly sandboxed.
only runs web standards AND Flash, but happily disregards anything written by anybody else
And what other "anything" are you currently using for web apps?
So... I guess you'd like to point us to the numerous security holes in Flash that have been exploited by hackers?
Go ahead, post some links. We'll wait.
Read over the EcmaScript 4 work-in-progress proposal and see what you think:
http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/
(Basically, imagine ActionScript 3 + JavaScript 1.7 + lots of other goodies.)
You had zeroes?
We had to make do with the letter "O".
You were lucky... we used to DREAM of working in stone.
Back in my day we had to form zeroes and ones out of primordial soup.
Ever used the Recovery Console, moron?
No.
Ever need to ping your localhost because WINDOWS HOSED THE FUCKING NETWORK?
No.
Ever use Windows servers?
Yes, but I didn't need to use a CLI to use them.
You speak Microsoft shill bullshit, like the rest of the shills.
Who said I was talking about Windows, anyway? I'm typing this on a Mac.
Thanks for an excellent and thoughtful response; that really gets to the heart of what I was trying to say. Wish I was able to mod you up.
Dude! I never said Vista looks good.
Vista is a bag of poo.
If you offered me the option to run Vista, or drive a nail through my hand, I'd probably ask, "what size nail are talking about?"
First, the "manually editing" construct is disingenuous in that it suggests some sort of onerous labour that most folks don't already do on a daily basis in a wordprocessor. I can't recall anyone complaining about "manually editing" a Word file.
;-)
Except that making a typo when editing the Word file won't prevent you from re-opening the Word file and fixing it. Making a typo when editing (say) xorg.conf can clobber you into text-only mode. Hope you know vim, and remembered to sudo first.
And second, *nix systems are built around the concept of a terminal and files.
I'm glad you understand that, but present-day desktop systems have done their best to eradicate that metaphor in favor of the Windows-ish view of the world, in which "terminal" has been banished in favor of "graphical presentation". Linux (et al) may really be that way under the surface, but then, so is OS X, and it's managed to banish the terminal-and-files metaphor to a ghetto that only developers need to enter. I submit to you that this is a good thing.
The second option is hard to follow without a series of screenshots, isn't it?
Um, no, not really.
You know, I actually agree with you.
At the same time... I recently sold my last manual transmission car for an automatic. Manuals used to have a nice advantage in terms of reliability and efficiency, but newer 5-speed autos pretty much don't give up anything significant there, and they are way easier to deal with in the hell of traffic that is the Bay Area. (Sure, they cost a bit more, but I'm willing to spend the bucks.)
Does this mean I'm a loser for taking advantage of improvements in technology? Or does it mean that the baseline standards have shifted?
Back in the Windows 3.1 days, editing WIN.INI (or xorg.conf, etc) was standard operating procedure... but that was then; this is now. Expectations have shifted.
As a mainstream user? Pretty much, no, not that I can recall.
(For my development work? Sure, yeah, all the time. But then I get paid to do this. My mom wants it to just work. The odds that she could use vim to edit xorg.conf when the it's broken are, well, pretty slim.)
Sure, there are occasional odd bits on the "mainstream" systems too, but in my experience they are extraordinarily few and far between.
Look, all I'm saying is that if you want Linux to remain a developer-oriented OS, then the status quo is fine. But to truly penetrate the mainstream, you either have to understand the non-developer mindset ("typing commands is confusing"), or convert all users to the developer mindset ("boiling the ocean").
any recommended fixes to Windows problems include editing the registry.
That's true.
But I'm not aware of any issues quite so commonplace -- or as dire -- as "my videocard refuses to work", that require editing the registry.
As a user, I've never found the need to check my routing table or hosts file.
(As a developer, sure. But that's not what we're talking about here.)
Yes, as a matter of fact. Yes!
I might be persuaded that editing config files for really really advanced or unusual things might be OK.
But to get a freaking video card to work? From one of the top makers of video cards?
No, sorry, that's just unacceptable.
Yeah, you're right, that is a rather inflammatory choice of response on my part.... sorry 'bout that.
:-)
But I still stand by the meat of my post
Why do you assume I use Windows?
reconfiguring it when you upgrade your graphics cards isn't a particularly difficult thing to do
Bzzt, wrong answer.
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
If you want Linux to be mainstream-friendly, one of the absolute must-haves is that the user must NEVER EVER EVER, any any circumstances, have to either (1) edit a text config file by hand, or (2) use the command line.
No exceptions, no "most of the time" situation, no "power users only" weasel words. Config files and command lines are OK for developers, but not for mainstream users -- end of story.
I'll get flamed for it, but I speak the truth.
Also, Adobe is still unable to provide decent compression on the PNGs its software generates
i zing_png_files
Not so. Fireworks has always had one of the best PNG compressors of any editing app. (You may be fooled by its native file format, which is PNG with a ton of metadata embedded... exporting as a PNG will lose the metadata but make it WAY smaller.)
A google for "pngcrush fireworks" turns up many such references, e.g.,
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/02/08/optim
Yeah, but he was in suspended animation (frozen in an iceberg) for 20 years.... or was it 40?
Obligatory reference to "X-Men: Death Becomes Them"
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/218160
"Oh, like none of you have ever died before!"
... in which Melmoth is sentenced to two years hard labor for writing without a permit. (Not *publishing*... merely writing.)
Yes, this results in the godawful pun: "No artistic license...?"
(And yes, I know that Dave Sim has become a complete nutcase, but the early storylines and art in Cerebus are still pretty amazing.)
Maybe the "religion" gene is neither helpful nor harmful, but linked to other useful genes (other higher brain function, perhaps)?
o pment_of_cavefish_eyes/
Sort of how blind cave-fish aren't being selected for blindness, so much as being selected for other traits which happen to have blindness as a side-effect?
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/devel