The question is, why can't the OSS community, with it's legions of developers get a single app to work smoothly and like an Apple or even a Microsoft app?
I'd argue that Mozilla runs much more smoothly than either IE or Safari. (Both of which have memory leak issues on OSX)
I really do believe that rose colored glasses come into play more often than not. I'm sure that you've had to quit safari recently because it wasn't responsive anymore. Yet I doubt you paid it much attention.
A good example of Open Source stuff working *better* than closed source: the shortcut bar in mozilla versus the one in safari.
In mozilla, I can right click on any item in the bar and delete it or tell it to open the shortcut in a new window/tab, in safari there is no context menu for items in the shortcut bar.
In mozilla i can right click on the bar itself, and create a new folder. In safari I have to go to the bookmarks menu.
In mozilla I can reorder items in a shortcut folder just by dragging them around. In safari, I have to go to the bookmarks editor.
How about the caching problems in Safari? Flash files get cached, which makes it a pain in the ass to do flash development with safari. How about when I hit shift-reload the first time, it doesn't really reload the page? You have to shift-reload twice.
It's pretty crazy that our web developers have resorted to using Firebird on OSX because Safari is such a poor browser for web development (It doesn't display javascript errors?!)
The simple fact of the matter is that people working for free will ALWAYS be inclined to work on stuff they're interested in.
You know what I'm sick of? Going to yardsales and craft fairs and seeing birdhouse after birdhouse. If only those carpenters would pool their resources, they could build me a house instead.
the bottom line is this: hiding your server decreases the number of scans and attempted xploits on your box
funny, I've yet to see any proof of this. My Linux box still has plenty of requests for CMD.EXE.. as well as many other windows-only attacks.
The amount of time spent determining whether my machine is running Windows or not takes up the exact same amount of time as attempting to run CMD.EXE. So the question is why would anyone bother, unless it was a targetted attack and they were going to attempt more than one exploit (rarely the case)
I prefer to be able to tell if an operating system or tcp/ip stack has fallen over without having to go over and hook up a console.
Yes, but wouldn't it be better to use something like Big Brother which actually checks to see if the *service* is down?
Ping a box all you want, it's not going to tell you if a service died. We had an old Sparc which would still respond to pings even after it had crashed and dropped to PROM.
I came up with that figure while shopping for games at WalMart recently, after noticing that some of the $50 playstation II games had $30 PC versions.
Yeah, this is because PC games become bargin-bin faster. A PC game that costs $50 now, will cost $30 in 3 months.. while it'll take a good 6-9 months for a console game to drop to $30.
I'd like to see you manage 40 open windows and find ONE quickly, please. Oh, what's the matter, your scheme doesn't work for more than 3-4 windows per virtual terminal?
I'd like to see you use expose with 6 or 7 terminal windows open.
All I know is that every Panther user seems to rave about how good expose is.
My coworkers must be strange then. Because all of them (web designers) think expose is pretty useless, and the only thing they use it for is to clear the desktop temporarily.
2. $2000 USD is practically nothing in terms of software development costs.
Which economy are you living in? My company wouldn't be too happy if I wanted to spend $2000 just for the devkit.. in fact, I can guarrantee you they'd say no. Then I'd use GTK instead.
Someone spending $2000 on a devkit which isn't demonstratably better than the free alternative deserves to have their job shipped to India.
In all other situations I can think of, you already have a PC, and all you get from shelling out $99 for a game cube or much more for another console is the ability to buy all your games for $20 more than the regular price.
So the regular price is $0-$20?
Tons of gamecube games are $19-$39. Even new releases. Sure some of the biggest games are $50, but so are the biggest PC games.
Viewtiful Joe is a great game, it just came out last month, and it's $40.
KotoR on the PC recommends half a gig of ram and a 128meg video card. This doesn't seem like much, but the xbox only has 64 megs of ram total (that's shared between vram and system ram), and yet kotor somehow runs just dandy on it.
Plus the PC version isn't as stable as the xbox version.. it's like they didn't do as much testing.
Which are the two main problems of the PC. Expandability, and patchability.
They won't spend as much time optimizing a PC game, since they can just demand that you get more ram/faster cpu/better video card. Whereas there's no alternative to optimizing a console game.. it's required or the game won't run.
They can get away with not testing games as much, since they can just release a patch the day after the game ships.. and more patches down the road. With a console they have to get it right, or the game will forever be flawed.
Seriously, how hard would it have been to design the thing with an easily replaceable battery?
Most rechargable devices have a little panel held in place with a screw which hides the battery. The problem is, Apple doesn't like screws, they're not "sleek" or "lickable".
So Apple would have to design a battery cover that would glow a pleasant orange, and then pop open when you breathed on it. And that just made the iPod too expensive.
In cases like this, I think binary would be appropriate
Goes against the purpose of SVG. SVG can be *embedded* into XHTML. Not with an embed tag, but actually right there in the code. Can't do that if SVG were binary.
Slashdot Mirror
All an applications dynamic libraries are contained in the bundle. It's a bit wasteful space-wise, but HDD space is cheap.
I can't stand that arguement. It's that mindset that is responsible for the bloat in software today.
It takes more than an hour (yes, more than an hour) to *install* Star Wars: KOTOR.
Disk space may be cheap, but spending an hour waiting for a game to finish installing is insane.
Uh, you mean Red Hat Linux, where every service and it's 3rd cousin is running?
I see you haven't used Red Hat since the 6.x versions
Red Hat has installed a firewall, blocking every port by default since version 7.
Not surprising, since from Apple's view, it's really a beta. Jaguar was the first version of OS X that was ready for prime time,
So what you're saying is that Apple spent all of last year (2002) sending out millions of end-user machines with a beta OS on it?
The question is, why can't the OSS community, with it's legions of developers get a single app to work smoothly and like an Apple or even a Microsoft app?
I'd argue that Mozilla runs much more smoothly than either IE or Safari. (Both of which have memory leak issues on OSX)
I really do believe that rose colored glasses come into play more often than not. I'm sure that you've had to quit safari recently because it wasn't responsive anymore. Yet I doubt you paid it much attention.
A good example of Open Source stuff working *better* than closed source: the shortcut bar in mozilla versus the one in safari.
In mozilla, I can right click on any item in the bar and delete it or tell it to open the shortcut in a new window/tab, in safari there is no context menu for items in the shortcut bar.
In mozilla i can right click on the bar itself, and create a new folder. In safari I have to go to the bookmarks menu.
In mozilla I can reorder items in a shortcut folder just by dragging them around. In safari, I have to go to the bookmarks editor.
How about the caching problems in Safari? Flash files get cached, which makes it a pain in the ass to do flash development with safari. How about when I hit shift-reload the first time, it doesn't really reload the page? You have to shift-reload twice.
It's pretty crazy that our web developers have resorted to using Firebird on OSX because Safari is such a poor browser for web development (It doesn't display javascript errors?!)
End users don't care about legal reasons, they care about results.
That certainly explains why 90% of the people I know are running pirated copies of WinXP.
The simple fact of the matter is that people working for free will ALWAYS be inclined to work on stuff they're interested in.
You know what I'm sick of? Going to yardsales and craft fairs and seeing birdhouse after birdhouse. If only those carpenters would pool their resources, they could build me a house instead.
I think the fact that the author was trying to watch Charlie's Angels II is Example #1 of "What's Wrong with this Author"
i like to tell apache that all requests for default.ida have Temporarily Moved to www.fbi.gov
let those bastards hack the fbi instead.
the bottom line is this: hiding your server decreases the number of scans and attempted xploits on your box
funny, I've yet to see any proof of this. My Linux box still has plenty of requests for CMD.EXE.. as well as many other windows-only attacks.
The amount of time spent determining whether my machine is running Windows or not takes up the exact same amount of time as attempting to run CMD.EXE. So the question is why would anyone bother, unless it was a targetted attack and they were going to attempt more than one exploit (rarely the case)
I prefer to be able to tell if an operating system or tcp/ip stack has fallen over without having to go over and hook up a console.
Yes, but wouldn't it be better to use something like Big Brother which actually checks to see if the *service* is down?
Ping a box all you want, it's not going to tell you if a service died. We had an old Sparc which would still respond to pings even after it had crashed and dropped to PROM.
Law #1: If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your computer, it's not your computer anymore.
That's why I've been saying for years that all my computers are owned by Bill Gates.
How can digital information become rare, when it can be copied perfectly for just about nothing?
I'd say stuff like the source for Windows 2000 would be considered rare... and very valuable.
Some digital information can be considered very rare and valuable. But that's probably not the stuff this guy is talking about.
Diamonds etc are a rarity, thus due to supply and demand they are assigned a large value
No, this is due to cartel manipulation.
I'd be willing to bet that little fossil rocks with Trilobytes in them are far more rare than diamonds, yet trilobyte fossils are $1.25.
This isn't supply and demand, this is market manipulation.
I came up with that figure while shopping for games at WalMart recently, after noticing that some of the $50 playstation II games had $30 PC versions.
Yeah, this is because PC games become bargin-bin faster. A PC game that costs $50 now, will cost $30 in 3 months.. while it'll take a good 6-9 months for a console game to drop to $30.
So that is a valid point.
I'd like to see you manage 40 open windows and find ONE quickly, please. Oh, what's the matter, your scheme doesn't work for more than 3-4 windows per virtual terminal?
I'd like to see you use expose with 6 or 7 terminal windows open.
All I know is that every Panther user seems to rave about how good expose is.
My coworkers must be strange then. Because all of them (web designers) think expose is pretty useless, and the only thing they use it for is to clear the desktop temporarily.
I always thought that the term "calling a spade a spade" was rooted in racism. Since "spade" was on par with the n-word.
even if KDE were to be killed off, there'd still be huge competition.. from two companies, one named Microsoft and the other named Apple.
2. $2000 USD is practically nothing in terms of software development costs.
Which economy are you living in? My company wouldn't be too happy if I wanted to spend $2000 just for the devkit.. in fact, I can guarrantee you they'd say no. Then I'd use GTK instead.
Someone spending $2000 on a devkit which isn't demonstratably better than the free alternative deserves to have their job shipped to India.
but games aren't ever hitting the $70 price point that I paid for Street Fighter II and Chrono Trigger back in the SNES days.
Funny sidenote, if you still have your chrono trigger, it's aged well. It runs about $30 used.. and that's if you don't want the box.
if you have the original box, the game is about $70.
There is no market for used PC games.. but the market for used console games is huge.
In all other situations I can think of, you already have a PC, and all you get from shelling out $99 for a game cube or much more for another console is the ability to buy all your games for $20 more than the regular price.
So the regular price is $0-$20?
Tons of gamecube games are $19-$39. Even new releases. Sure some of the biggest games are $50, but so are the biggest PC games.
Viewtiful Joe is a great game, it just came out last month, and it's $40.
good example.
KotoR on the PC recommends half a gig of ram and a 128meg video card. This doesn't seem like much, but the xbox only has 64 megs of ram total (that's shared between vram and system ram), and yet kotor somehow runs just dandy on it.
Plus the PC version isn't as stable as the xbox version.. it's like they didn't do as much testing.
Which are the two main problems of the PC. Expandability, and patchability.
They won't spend as much time optimizing a PC game, since they can just demand that you get more ram/faster cpu/better video card. Whereas there's no alternative to optimizing a console game.. it's required or the game won't run.
They can get away with not testing games as much, since they can just release a patch the day after the game ships.. and more patches down the road. With a console they have to get it right, or the game will forever be flawed.
Seriously, how hard would it have been to design the thing with an easily replaceable battery?
Most rechargable devices have a little panel held in place with a screw which hides the battery. The problem is, Apple doesn't like screws, they're not "sleek" or "lickable".
So Apple would have to design a battery cover that would glow a pleasant orange, and then pop open when you breathed on it. And that just made the iPod too expensive.
This is no different than it being rendered in the future as a vector image in Longhorn.
Unless you have a bad ass lasershow in your house, you can't render anything as a vector. It'll still be bitmaps.
In cases like this, I think binary would be appropriate
Goes against the purpose of SVG. SVG can be *embedded* into XHTML. Not with an embed tag, but actually right there in the code. Can't do that if SVG were binary.