I don't understand, maybe it's something with my configuration, but I tested your bechmark on FF 3.0 (couldn't be bothered to install 3.1 to test it with TraceMonkey), and it ran in about a second. The same benchmark took more than 10 seconds to run on Chrome, hanging the UI while doing so. What's the deal?
The problem as I see it (I'm in the same situation as the poster - I have experience in almost all languages / DBs / etc. he has, except Java) is that he has experience in areas that are saturated and / or in a decline trend, and none in an area with a growing demand.
So I think it's not really a matter of being a "jack of all trades", as you put it, but keeping up with the market demands. I actually wouldn't like to learn Java right now, as I think I can do pretty well with my current experience. I'm more interested in learning other newer languages / technologies that seem more interesting and more promising than Java (even if sometimes not as mature or proven), like Ruby, Python, etc... Unfortunately, none of these has nearly as much demand as does Java, so I'm more compelled to learn it to keep myself hireable.
Btw, it's not that I think Java is a worse language than the ones I'm more interested in, it's just that I think that learning Java wouldn't be as fun or rewarding than the alternatives. But I'm more than willing to be convinced that I'm wrong, so I'll watch this discussion closely for tips.
What 'tha_mink' said. Plus, their page design is too bloated, it takes too long to load the results page, compared to Google, with its simplistic design, that loads almost instantly. I've scrapped Cuil just for that.
Re:Why not apply spam filters on outgoing messages
on
Spammers Choose GMail
·
· Score: 1
The problem major problem with spam filters is the false positives, and with outgoing e-mail this problem is worse, because if Google thinks the e-mail you're sending is spam, google is caught in a dead end with two options, neither good:
Discard the e-mail silently. With false positives, that's bad for obvious reasons.
Bounce the e-mail back to the sender. That's less bad for legitimate users, but awesome for spammers, because they can then tweak their message until it gets past the filter. Google could probably implement further filtering criteria in this case that starts silently discarding outgoing messages after N bounces of a message that looks like other messages to a certain degree, in a given period. But that would not be cost effective (both in implementation and computational cost), and could probably hurt a few legitimate users too.
I think outgoing filtering is not the way to go. I don't have a better solution either, the best for now is probably improving their current filter for incoming messages, and make it harder for spammers to get an account on GMail.
They're boned as far as operating systems go. They can't break backwards compatibility, but that same backwards compatibility is killing them as they try to improve the system.
Yes, it is killing them, but that problem is not that hard to get around to as you make it out to be. You mention MacOSX, and still failed to point out how that it pretty much nailed that very same problem during the transition from MacOS 9 to OSX - Classic applications would run on a sort of VM. That may not be the best solution, sure, but that environment would be far more stable, it'd get the job done, and it's far more elegant than piling API over legacy stuff.
Here's the problem from a usability standpoint: I want to install a media player. I don't know that I need to install mplayer, xine or totem. (What is a totem and WTF does it have to do with playing media? WTF is a xine anyhow?) THe 'Add/Remove Programs' in Ubuntu addresses some of this, but try installing an app that plays podcasts WITHOUT KNOWING that democracyplayer and VLC play podcasts.
I guess the GP's point was about people who complain about Linux's usability _compared to Windows_. And I agree, it is no worse, and maybe it's better on some aspects. Windows is plagued by odd-named applications too, and in the end you still may need to resort to Google (shock horror!) to find what you want. That's probably true of any OS. Cope.
That, and I think FF3b5 is already more stable than FF2 is, aside from the numerous performance and footprint improvements.
There's the issue with extensions, yes. But there are few extensions at this point that doesn't have a FF3 compatible version, even if in beta. In my case, the ones that doesn't, I was able to replace with another extension that does the same thing, or better. In my case:
- Foxmarks (they supposedly have a beta version that works in FF3, but it's only open to a select group of beta-testers - wtf?) => Mozilla Weave (it isn't as smooth, but it works)
Also, there are a couple of extensions I've just remove since FF3 has the features I've used these extensions for natively.
You haven't tried OO in a long time, it seems... I can't even remember when was it that OO didn't have the CTRL+B / CTRL+I shortcuts, I think they are pretty standard for any Office suite these days. As for CTRL-+ for increasing fonts, it isn't available by default, but you can easily customize the keyboard shortcuts to mimic that behavior by going into the "Tools" / "Customize" menu, in the "Keyboard" tab.
However, since no (publicly released) browser currently passes the test / renders the page correctly, how the test authors know how *exactly* it is supposed to look like?
I agree with you, but that's just you, me, and maybe some of the/. crowd that isn't a *nix zealot always ready to throw stones for everything Microsoft does.
The way it'd happen with the average user though is that he would see a dialog warning him that the driver he's trying to load isn't safe, click "Yes" anyway (probably without even reading the warning up close), and then when the system started to barf, they would still blame Microsoft anyway.
Get the picture? Then you'd have thousands of people going at Microsoft with troches and pitchforks, and Microsoft would have to bend over. Actually, that's not really too different than what is happening now, I guess Microsoft just had to choose the lesser of two evils.
Not that I don't think Microsoft aren't an evil company btw - I just try to keep some sense of perspective.
A web developer will probably not use "view source" very much anyway. Try firebug. That's the way to go if you really want to understand a page. You'll rarely need "view source" after that.
Sorry, no dice. I'm a web developer too, and I do use Firebug all the time, but there are times when viewing the source is necessary, and Firebug's presentation doesn't cut it because Firebug doesn't present the page as it was sent to the browser, but as it was computed by Firefox, i.e. as FF "understood" it - you may know that when the source has incongruities and errors, all browsers try the best to "fix" it, so the way Firebug presents the source is not necessarily the same as it was received by Firefox, and this can mask problems you may be trying to fix.
"Waste of memory" doesn't cut it too. As the GP said, the source of a page alone rarely goes beyond 100kb, and that's a tiny fraction of the memory FF uses right after launch - you'd hardly see the difference in memory usage if the source for the current opened pages was kept on memory.
The most binding legal restriction on OS/2 must be Microsoft, since a lot of the code from OS/2 came from them, before they dumped it behind IBM's back in favor of Windows NT.
I just bought a Lenovo X61 with one of intel's latest integrated chips, the Intel GMA X3100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA#GMA_X3100) and I have trouble playing Counterstrike on it ( i get about 25 fps @ 640x480).
Hmm... maybe you're having some driver problems? I've got an HP laptop with an even older Intel integrated than yours (the GMA945), and it runs CounterStrike just fine - I get on average about 40fps @ 1024x768, though it usually runs at about max (72fps), only slowing down to about 30fps during crowded situations, but without hiccups.
Agreed on your point about integrated vs. dedicated video, though. And I also think the iMac is better offer, overall.
I see you were modded funny, but I'm personally taking it as tongue-in-cheek.
Do you mean, "Using the C-language escape character as a path separator cool"
or
"Merging disk partitions and formats in a way that keeps people stupid (c:) cool"
You see, both of these were conventions from DOS (that initially Microsoft couldn't change for market reasons, because they weren't as big back then), that were carried over on to Windows for backwards compatibility. So one could argue that this is actually an instance of Microsoft "being cool" back then, though nowadays there's very little reason to keep holding on to these conventions.
That's because GTK and WxWidgets are not really on the same league. GTK implements a full Widget engine, as in it does all the job of actually drawing all the widgets. WxWidgets is not really a Widget engine per se, just a wrapper around the underlying platform's own native widget engine - that's why cross-platform applications written using wxWidgets has a native look and feel to them. In the case of Linux, wx wraps around GTK, since there's isn't a standardized widget engine for X11 applications (though IIRC Wx has or had QT bindings too).
That's not to say I dislike WxWidgets though, to the contrary - I always turn to it when I need cross-platform GUI apps, it is sweet, and it is sad that it has so little recognition, and poorer approaches to the solution are used instead (GTK / QT).
Is that a joke, or are you just a troll? Did you ever develop webpages? I mean, standards-compliant ones? And then tried viewing them with IE6?
The point is not allowing people to write crap code, but having hacky code written because of a crappy browser still render right, while having standards-compliant pages render correctly too.
Just like XP flopped when people were complaining for ages that thousands of applications wouldn't work on it, very few DOS programs wouldn't work and it seemingly didn't offer enough benefits to counter-act this?
Except XP WAS supposed to be a major change, as there was major architectural changes between XP and Windows 98, the OS that XP was supposed to replace, and they were certainly for the better, even if at the time the hardware requirements shied away some people, and there was compatibility problems, though they were admittedly few.
How many people you know that complained about XP when it came out? I can tell I didn't. I found it cool, I just didn't really needed it back when it was released, since back then (and arguably, to this day) XP was nothing but a nice-looking Win2k. With time it got a few compelling features, and the fact that it was then better supported than Win2k made an upgrade more worthwhile.
But with Vista, what did Microsoft do? They took something that was working fine, bloated it with DRM, messed with the infrastructure of stuff that at best needed just fixing instead of a rewrite, slapped an artificial access control system (users are still administrators by default, they just get reminded of it now), prettyfied it even more, and sold it as a new OS. With the move from Windows 98 to Win2k/XP, at least there was the excuse of better stability, but with Vista, what there is to gain from an upgrade? Please, tell me.
"and I [stole an unlocked version of] XP. I'm happy."
I edited your last statement for accuracy.
If you don't like their rules, don't play their game.
You know, I'm sick of those people that make copying == stealing. Ok, so where did the substraction of goods / money happened? There's is no stealing in copying. By pirating, you've just denied a potential revenue, because the original copy still exists and was already sold or available for sale.
I'm not saying pirating is fine and legal and shouldn't be punished. But I don't think a pirate (a digital one, anyway, more specially the ones that makes copies for personal use) is necessarily a thief either, specially in the GP's case. About your last statement, that's exactly what the corporations want you to think. But when did the *consumers* went from regulators of the market to regulated? That's sad.
Funny, yes. But I think there's a bit of truth in there. That notion of "Free as in beer" is really confusing when you're explaining free as in freedom vs. free as in beer to someone that is new to the concept.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand, maybe it's something with my configuration, but I tested your bechmark on FF 3.0 (couldn't be bothered to install 3.1 to test it with TraceMonkey), and it ran in about a second. The same benchmark took more than 10 seconds to run on Chrome, hanging the UI while doing so. What's the deal?
The problem as I see it (I'm in the same situation as the poster - I have experience in almost all languages / DBs / etc. he has, except Java) is that he has experience in areas that are saturated and / or in a decline trend, and none in an area with a growing demand.
So I think it's not really a matter of being a "jack of all trades", as you put it, but keeping up with the market demands. I actually wouldn't like to learn Java right now, as I think I can do pretty well with my current experience. I'm more interested in learning other newer languages / technologies that seem more interesting and more promising than Java (even if sometimes not as mature or proven), like Ruby, Python, etc... Unfortunately, none of these has nearly as much demand as does Java, so I'm more compelled to learn it to keep myself hireable.
Btw, it's not that I think Java is a worse language than the ones I'm more interested in, it's just that I think that learning Java wouldn't be as fun or rewarding than the alternatives. But I'm more than willing to be convinced that I'm wrong, so I'll watch this discussion closely for tips.
Yeah, but I think the idea first came from M.A.N.T.I.S. Captcha: amplify
What 'tha_mink' said. Plus, their page design is too bloated, it takes too long to load the results page, compared to Google, with its simplistic design, that loads almost instantly. I've scrapped Cuil just for that.
The problem major problem with spam filters is the false positives, and with outgoing e-mail this problem is worse, because if Google thinks the e-mail you're sending is spam, google is caught in a dead end with two options, neither good:
I think outgoing filtering is not the way to go. I don't have a better solution either, the best for now is probably improving their current filter for incoming messages, and make it harder for spammers to get an account on GMail.
They're boned as far as operating systems go. They can't break backwards compatibility, but that same backwards compatibility is killing them as they try to improve the system.
Yes, it is killing them, but that problem is not that hard to get around to as you make it out to be. You mention MacOSX, and still failed to point out how that it pretty much nailed that very same problem during the transition from MacOS 9 to OSX - Classic applications would run on a sort of VM. That may not be the best solution, sure, but that environment would be far more stable, it'd get the job done, and it's far more elegant than piling API over legacy stuff.
I guess the GP's point was about people who complain about Linux's usability _compared to Windows_. And I agree, it is no worse, and maybe it's better on some aspects. Windows is plagued by odd-named applications too, and in the end you still may need to resort to Google (shock horror!) to find what you want. That's probably true of any OS. Cope.
That, and I think FF3b5 is already more stable than FF2 is, aside from the numerous performance and footprint improvements.
There's the issue with extensions, yes. But there are few extensions at this point that doesn't have a FF3 compatible version, even if in beta. In my case, the ones that doesn't, I was able to replace with another extension that does the same thing, or better. In my case:
Also, there are a couple of extensions I've just remove since FF3 has the features I've used these extensions for natively.
Turn on the sound.
Then you'll know how wonderful and supreme is zombocom. Zombocom is everything.
You haven't tried OO in a long time, it seems... I can't even remember when was it that OO didn't have the CTRL+B / CTRL+I shortcuts, I think they are pretty standard for any Office suite these days. As for CTRL-+ for increasing fonts, it isn't available by default, but you can easily customize the keyboard shortcuts to mimic that behavior by going into the "Tools" / "Customize" menu, in the "Keyboard" tab.
However, since no (publicly released) browser currently passes the test / renders the page correctly, how the test authors know how *exactly* it is supposed to look like?
I agree with you, but that's just you, me, and maybe some of the /. crowd that isn't a *nix zealot always ready to throw stones for everything Microsoft does.
The way it'd happen with the average user though is that he would see a dialog warning him that the driver he's trying to load isn't safe, click "Yes" anyway (probably without even reading the warning up close), and then when the system started to barf, they would still blame Microsoft anyway.
Get the picture? Then you'd have thousands of people going at Microsoft with troches and pitchforks, and Microsoft would have to bend over. Actually, that's not really too different than what is happening now, I guess Microsoft just had to choose the lesser of two evils.
Not that I don't think Microsoft aren't an evil company btw - I just try to keep some sense of perspective.
A web developer will probably not use "view source" very much anyway. Try firebug. That's the way to go if you really want to understand a page. You'll rarely need "view source" after that.
Sorry, no dice. I'm a web developer too, and I do use Firebug all the time, but there are times when viewing the source is necessary, and Firebug's presentation doesn't cut it because Firebug doesn't present the page as it was sent to the browser, but as it was computed by Firefox, i.e. as FF "understood" it - you may know that when the source has incongruities and errors, all browsers try the best to "fix" it, so the way Firebug presents the source is not necessarily the same as it was received by Firefox, and this can mask problems you may be trying to fix.
"Waste of memory" doesn't cut it too. As the GP said, the source of a page alone rarely goes beyond 100kb, and that's a tiny fraction of the memory FF uses right after launch - you'd hardly see the difference in memory usage if the source for the current opened pages was kept on memory.
The most binding legal restriction on OS/2 must be Microsoft, since a lot of the code from OS/2 came from them, before they dumped it behind IBM's back in favor of Windows NT.
I just bought a Lenovo X61 with one of intel's latest integrated chips, the Intel GMA X3100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA#GMA_X3100) and I have trouble playing Counterstrike on it ( i get about 25 fps @ 640x480).
Hmm... maybe you're having some driver problems? I've got an HP laptop with an even older Intel integrated than yours (the GMA945), and it runs CounterStrike just fine - I get on average about 40fps @ 1024x768, though it usually runs at about max (72fps), only slowing down to about 30fps during crowded situations, but without hiccups.
Agreed on your point about integrated vs. dedicated video, though. And I also think the iMac is better offer, overall.
I see you were modded funny, but I'm personally taking it as tongue-in-cheek.
Do you mean, "Using the C-language escape character as a path separator cool"
or
"Merging disk partitions and formats in a way that keeps people stupid (c:) cool"
You see, both of these were conventions from DOS (that initially Microsoft couldn't change for market reasons, because they weren't as big back then), that were carried over on to Windows for backwards compatibility. So one could argue that this is actually an instance of Microsoft "being cool" back then, though nowadays there's very little reason to keep holding on to these conventions.
That's because GTK and WxWidgets are not really on the same league. GTK implements a full Widget engine, as in it does all the job of actually drawing all the widgets. WxWidgets is not really a Widget engine per se, just a wrapper around the underlying platform's own native widget engine - that's why cross-platform applications written using wxWidgets has a native look and feel to them. In the case of Linux, wx wraps around GTK, since there's isn't a standardized widget engine for X11 applications (though IIRC Wx has or had QT bindings too).
That's not to say I dislike WxWidgets though, to the contrary - I always turn to it when I need cross-platform GUI apps, it is sweet, and it is sad that it has so little recognition, and poorer approaches to the solution are used instead (GTK / QT).
What's next? Dogs living with cats??
Nah, that's already quite common. I guess that leaves only "Hell freezing over" missing...
Is that a joke, or are you just a troll? Did you ever develop webpages? I mean, standards-compliant ones? And then tried viewing them with IE6?
The point is not allowing people to write crap code, but having hacky code written because of a crappy browser still render right, while having standards-compliant pages render correctly too.
Whhooooooosshhh!
Vista would have to re-animate the dead into blood thirsty zombies before it could rival the utter horror of ME.
Gosh, I sure wouldn't like to meet you.
Just like XP flopped when people were complaining for ages that thousands of applications wouldn't work on it, very few DOS programs wouldn't work and it seemingly didn't offer enough benefits to counter-act this?
Except XP WAS supposed to be a major change, as there was major architectural changes between XP and Windows 98, the OS that XP was supposed to replace, and they were certainly for the better, even if at the time the hardware requirements shied away some people, and there was compatibility problems, though they were admittedly few.
How many people you know that complained about XP when it came out? I can tell I didn't. I found it cool, I just didn't really needed it back when it was released, since back then (and arguably, to this day) XP was nothing but a nice-looking Win2k. With time it got a few compelling features, and the fact that it was then better supported than Win2k made an upgrade more worthwhile.
But with Vista, what did Microsoft do? They took something that was working fine, bloated it with DRM, messed with the infrastructure of stuff that at best needed just fixing instead of a rewrite, slapped an artificial access control system (users are still administrators by default, they just get reminded of it now), prettyfied it even more, and sold it as a new OS. With the move from Windows 98 to Win2k/XP, at least there was the excuse of better stability, but with Vista, what there is to gain from an upgrade? Please, tell me.
"and I [stole an unlocked version of] XP. I'm happy."
I edited your last statement for accuracy.
If you don't like their rules, don't play their game.
You know, I'm sick of those people that make copying == stealing. Ok, so where did the substraction of goods / money happened? There's is no stealing in copying. By pirating, you've just denied a potential revenue, because the original copy still exists and was already sold or available for sale.
I'm not saying pirating is fine and legal and shouldn't be punished. But I don't think a pirate (a digital one, anyway, more specially the ones that makes copies for personal use) is necessarily a thief either, specially in the GP's case. About your last statement, that's exactly what the corporations want you to think. But when did the *consumers* went from regulators of the market to regulated? That's sad.
When asked about in the investigations, Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO, has plead innocent on the crime, because he "didn't fucking bury him".
Funny, yes. But I think there's a bit of truth in there. That notion of "Free as in beer" is really confusing when you're explaining free as in freedom vs. free as in beer to someone that is new to the concept.