If you look, you'll notice that "Linux" has a "TM" after it *some* of the time, and that the first mention of CrossOver Office has a "TM" and the second an "R".
You can say "there are physical differences between person A and computer B", but the problem is that person A and person C also differ quite a bit.
Saying "foo cannot be done" frequently results in someone being utterly wrong. Just a few decades ago, the idea of atomic power would have been laughable -- the ability to wipe an *entire city* away? How about having a person walk around on the moon? Unthinkable.
So, at the moment it seems to be an insurmountably difficult problem. But, a few years ago, the same thing would have been said about problems that we're not starting to think about being doable via quantum computers -- the face of computer science literally changed.
Nothing sucks more than trying to figure out which light in a series burned out -- and the LEDs last 20 times as long. And they don't go out on impact.
Every year, I plug in the lights and "debug" the strings, figuring out which lights are dead. It'd be a lot easier to just have them work.
You may have your client set up to render them in an ugly manner -- if you like the soft gray on a dark blue with techish fonts of the site you linked to, you can certainly tell your browser to do that.
XHTML compatable pages are ugly.
That is simply inane. XHTML is not particularly far from HTML. If your entire body of knowledge about XHTML comes from the above article, you're probably under a few misconceptions -- the guy used XHTML as it *should* (and HTML *should*) be used. You can covert Flashy Website Foo to XHTML easily.
HTML 1.1 compatable pages are ugly.
HTML is very heavily designed around being backwards compatible. So if your pages don't work with an HTML 1.1 browser, it's quite probable that you're doing something that doesn't fit with the *current* spec.
Leaving the border around your image link is ugly.
Actually, it's simply removing a source of information from the user -- one that they could remove themselves if they wanted to.
Not using tables is ugly.
Tables as tables are fine -- the problem is that very, very few tables on most GUI-tool-designed-websites are actually tables of data.
Why do you think people hire webdesigners?
Because they know they "need a website", want to market their company more, and don't have a clue what to do from there.
Because they know how to create an eye catching site.
For an artsy-type site, this might be reasonable. For most sites, though, I'm not randomly browsing the Web with the sole criteria of whether I look at a site being how "cool" it looks. It certainly doesn't drive me to come back to see what the webmaster has been doing to the site. Usually I'm looking for something -- news, when Daylight Savings Time starts, how many DIMMs a motherboard can take, whether my library has a given book.
When I go to fordvehicles.com, I'm not looking for a random "interactive movie" -- I want to know where I can find a dealership. I want to know what features are on this year's models. I'm not saying to myself "Hmm...where can I find a moving interface laden with lots of little movie transitions...oh, I know! I'll try fordvehicles.com...and while I'm there, if I like it enough, maybe I'll buy a car!"
Why do you think magazines look like they look?
It depends on the magazine. Look at, say, Forbes. You won't see goth text, purple backdrops, or pseudo-metal rims on the page edges.
Also, magazines are a "push" medium. My subscription comes to me, and I get it. I'm usually not looking for a particular piece of information, nor am I usually in a rush to get that data -- I'm reading in the bathroom or while waiting for my lunch to arrive.
Websites are a "pull" medium. I'm looking for data, and the more screwing around I have to do with some moving, jiggling, unusual interface, the harder it is for me to get what I'm looking for.
People want webpages to seem alive.
Perhaps you do. I can live without my text organically pulsing.
People want an interactive web.
Sure, there are times when interactivity can be handy. Slashdot lets me click "select all" to mark messages for deletion, for example. There are also times when it's entirely pointless and irritating, like menus that popup unbidden when I simply pass the mouse over them.
You are all used to seeing pages like CGIwrap's webpage [cgiwrap.com] that is an assault to the eyes at the expense of being compatable with all browsers including lynx and mosaic.
Actually, I find this website to be rather clean and easy to navigate.
Or, you might get as advanced as the apache webpage [apache.org] which is not as much an assault on the senses, but is still boring.
Still pretty decent.
I don't care what this loser says,
Oh.
he needs to get out of the ninteys and give people what they want.
I'm you on the "what they want" bit, though I suspect that "what they want" may be a bit different.
It's all about target marketing.
Um...all right.
Linux geeks are content to see pages like the cgi-wrap page.
Yup.
HOWEVER, normal people are impressed by things that move, things that make noise, things that interact.
"Normal people" are two year olds? Sure, there was some novelty when Flash first came out, but the model that was being proposed in the early days of web design (that people would "keep coming back to your site to see your improvements") simply didn't pan out. Content is what draws people and builds a lasting interest. Cheap novelty just gets in the way after people got familiar with the Web.
You're suggesting we should give people a bycicle because it'll get them from a to b and it's easy to use. But there will always be a market for flashy sport compacts, and if you ignore these people in favor of backwards compatability, you're going to alienate a good section of the population.
Bit of a loaded metaphor. I'd consider what I'm proposing to be more usable and powerful than what you are.
Take a look, for example, at the 2 Advanced Studios [2advanced.com] webpage. Tell me you've seen a cooler webpage, and I'll tell you you're lying.
Well, let's see. They've got a big page with no useful information or links at startup (sorry, perhaps it comes up with Flash, but like many people that have gotten tired of the Web playing movies and sounds at them, I've disabled Flash). There's a nice big "site requrements" page, implying that someone would actually upgrade either their browser, their plugin, their *processor*, or change their monitor/bit depth to use the website. That, frankly, smacks of unprofessionalism -- failing to cater to the user. It looks to me rather like a teenage hobbyist web designer's page.
Or, take a look at some [spacex.com] of the work [westonfl.org] they've done [fordvehicles.com].
All of which come up as broken embed icons to me, since I don't use Flash. Even with people that do use Flash, instability has long been a hallmark of webbrowsers rendering Flash -- this may have changed in the last two years or so, but I haven't really paid much attention.
Making a good looking, interactive page, with javascript menus, flash animations, etc, means "I have taken an interest in my work, and I care what it looks like".
Actually, the end user isn't looking for that sentiment at all, and hasn't remotely considered the web designer or HTML or anything like that. He's thinking "where's what I'm looking for?" Put in Javascript menus and you alienate people like my sister, who has a slow computer, my parents, who can't get comfortable with things *happening* when they simply move the mouse around to go elsewhere, me (who hates mouseless rollovers and Flash).
Some of you may have seen his XHTML bullshit at the top of this page and thought, "Oh, wow, this guy is great. This page is so readable, and so well organized." But, what most of the rest of us that live in reality said was "Jesus, that's aweful. It looks like he made it with an old copy of Frontpage 98 that was included with his windows 98 install". It looks aweful.
And so it should have Javascript menus and be significantly less navigable?
For example, this guy is claiming that flash intros suck.
Yup, nothing like waiting through a 15 second intro to see a website to improve usability.
Some of them do, but done right, it definately adds to the "wow" factor of the website. And the "wow" factor makes you money, or gets you accolades, not the "this will work in every browser ever, including my cell phone and my command line" factor.
The end user doesn't give a shit about accolades, any more than he does what marketing awards were given to the guy that designed the Viewsonic logo when he buys his monitor.
As for money -- you know what two of the most heavily used websites in the world are? Google and Yahoo. You know what? Both are fairly simple and minimalistic. You know what else? They beat out their competition, which put tons of sidebars, tables, and all sorts of crap in on their pages during the portal craze. Google is a great example of what I'm talking about. People what their information, and they don't want to screw around getting it. The dot coms that assumed people did because "conventional wisdom" said they did are all dead now. Maybe a bored 12-year-old at school gets a few moments of interest out of the bitmapped Javascript menus that you put so much stock in. I can guarantee you that the working adult is not interested in blowing an extra ten minutes on a website when he's looking for something, though.
Get with the times. There are graphic designs artists and webpage designers for a reason. The reason is because they know how to make a page look better than you do.
My entire point is that I *shouldn't* dictate what the page looks like. The *user* should be able to do that. I should be able to dictate the content in it. If the user likes that soft gray tech look on midnight blue that you seem to favor, that can be done. If the user doesn't see too well, the font can be enlarged (which *cannot* be done with your bitmapped interfaces, but *can* on the single site you were insulting). This is not 1% of the population -- most 50+ish year olds I've seen end up increasing the font size well above what I use, or squint at the screen. Same for blind/deaf/WebTV/Linux/MacOS/alternative browser users/cell users...
This guy's just a douche that's to stupid to smell the change and know he's obsolete. People like him are the reason it's ok to have a website that looks like shit, and I say I've had enough.
Ah.
Re:This has *got* to be copy-pasted...
on
Largo Loving Linux
·
· Score: 2
Wine *is* native. I can write an application and link against DirectX. A "native implementation" would be exactly what is in WINE (though perhaps packaged separately from the rest of WINE).
No, it just means that they accidently overpurchased those $5 NCD thin clients and they're "saving money for the city of Largo" again by reselling them...at a hefty profit.
If you get an iBook for free, its equivalent to going to school for a free semester.
And if you jack your tuition up and give away "free" laptops, it's equivalent to getting the students to subsidize your purchases of newer computer systems (to replace the aging ones being given to the students).
And *then*, if you can get your college on Slashdot...you're just rolling in good fortune.
It's still worth it -- look at their savings -- that's including their salary. If you pay more to get one knowledgeable IT person and he saves you tons on software and hardware...that's a pretty good investment.
Ah, yes. Goofy. Much like an apple with a bite out of it, or somesuch. Yes, I'm sure there are tons of IT people turning down Linux because they don't like the logo.
Downplay RMS, Linus, ESR, etc.
When a big IT department wants to buy Linux, they talk to Red Hat, not to the Linux Kernel Mailing List. This is not an issue.
DirectX
Oh, come on. I *know* you know about WINE.
Finally FOCUS GROUPS
Golly gee, that would be what Sun was doing with GNOME, wouldn't it? Or *any* of the big vendors do. Hmm...
HTML *used* to be perfectly accessable. It was *beautifully* designed so that anyone could use it. It's with all the new layout-oriented stuff that people start being made miserable -- some browsers can't display some sites properly, blind/deaf people are put at a disadvantage, you need a fair amount of CPU time just to browse web pages.
as long as you don't care about the little things (like font size, positioning, etc.) across multiple browsers
No *kidding*. The *point* of HTML is that the author should *not* care or try to force a font size on the end user -- the end user should be free to choose whatever's most convenient for them.
Unfortunately, the market got flooded with "web designers" who came straight from print magazines or got all their ideas from print magazines.
If you *really* want to be true to the content-separation ideology (the way HTML really should be done), you shouldn't use underline at all -- instead, use EM or something that implies emphasis. The user may be using a system that does not support underlining, or may not like the use of underlining on his web page.
Of course, few web designers are capable of designing a proper HTML page, so most of this isn't cared about any more.
The *entire point* is that it *isn't* too large. Your *client* may well preset it as too large, but his XHTML file is entirely correct -- written as HTML was supposed to be written. Not with all this invisible table and forced positioning and crap forced through with CSS and stuff like that.
A few thoughts -- there *have* to be existing ssh clients -- I remember BetterTelnet and similar for classic Mac OS.
Is it possible to set up an ssh server, then set up an SSH client that's scripted to ssh into the local machine? A bit of a hack, but as long as you aren't opening tons of terminals, it should provide you with a more reasonable environment without a tremendous amount of work on your part.
Your point about xdvi is well-taken too. Why is xdvi so much faster than gv? Is it *that* much easier to render DVIs than postscript files? Second, I'd suggest rxvt over xterm. Rxvt is the end-all be-all of terminals. It's extremely fast (try catting 50 megs of text in a couple terminals and time it -- it'll win), very lightweight (less RAM usage than any other terminal I know of) and has all the features anyone could possibly use. Oh, and it lets you compile out features that you definitely aren't going to use during runtime. Nice bit of software.
You ever notice how moderating useful posts Offtopic has little or no point? For Chrissake, if you want to call Offtopic on someone, go after the "SOVIET RUSSIA" guy or someone who's detracting from the forum, not helpful posts.
There's at least one user now whose.sig reads "I metamoderate all Offtopic moderations Unfair", which I'm starting to agree with. Go blow your mod points on trolls, not on helpful discussion.
The reason identd is required is pretty straightforward, actually.
Say I get on an IRC server and start abusing it. It's pretty easy to just ban my IP (or in extreme cases, up to my class B if dynamic IPs are in use and there's no better solution). So single-user machines are pretty easy to handle.
A not-unreasonable people still use public access machines, however. And you can't just ban their IPs without potentially screwing a lot of people -- if I ban MITs or CMU's public access UNIX boxes, I'm going to hurt a lot of people to block one baddie. However, these machines can be trusted to run a legtimate identd, so I can say "Don't block *everyone* on these machines...just this one user".
Granted, the utility value of identd is less now that Windows machines and single-user UNIX machines are dominant, but it still does solve a nasty problem sometimes.
However, even given that identd helps, I don't see why it's *required*. You can just say "if the remote host isn't running identd, just ban the entire IP if we get a baddie on that machine".
Slashdot Mirror
If you look, you'll notice that "Linux" has a "TM" after it *some* of the time, and that the first mention of CrossOver Office has a "TM" and the second an "R".
You can say "there are physical differences between person A and computer B", but the problem is that person A and person C also differ quite a bit.
Saying "foo cannot be done" frequently results in someone being utterly wrong. Just a few decades ago, the idea of atomic power would have been laughable -- the ability to wipe an *entire city* away? How about having a person walk around on the moon? Unthinkable.
So, at the moment it seems to be an insurmountably difficult problem. But, a few years ago, the same thing would have been said about problems that we're not starting to think about being doable via quantum computers -- the face of computer science literally changed.
Nothing sucks more than trying to figure out which light in a series burned out -- and the LEDs last 20 times as long. And they don't go out on impact.
Every year, I plug in the lights and "debug" the strings, figuring out which lights are dead. It'd be a lot easier to just have them work.
You want him to work on his *wedding* night touching up images? Are you *heartless*?
Okay, a first for something potentially important *and* plausible.
Plain text webpages are ugly.
You may have your client set up to render them in an ugly manner -- if you like the soft gray on a dark blue with techish fonts of the site you linked to, you can certainly tell your browser to do that.
XHTML compatable pages are ugly.
That is simply inane. XHTML is not particularly far from HTML. If your entire body of knowledge about XHTML comes from the above article, you're probably under a few misconceptions -- the guy used XHTML as it *should* (and HTML *should*) be used. You can covert Flashy Website Foo to XHTML easily.
HTML 1.1 compatable pages are ugly.
HTML is very heavily designed around being backwards compatible. So if your pages don't work with an HTML 1.1 browser, it's quite probable that you're doing something that doesn't fit with the *current* spec.
Leaving the border around your image link is ugly.
Actually, it's simply removing a source of information from the user -- one that they could remove themselves if they wanted to.
Not using tables is ugly.
Tables as tables are fine -- the problem is that very, very few tables on most GUI-tool-designed-websites are actually tables of data.
Why do you think people hire webdesigners?
Because they know they "need a website", want to market their company more, and don't have a clue what to do from there.
Because they know how to create an eye catching site.
For an artsy-type site, this might be reasonable. For most sites, though, I'm not randomly browsing the Web with the sole criteria of whether I look at a site being how "cool" it looks. It certainly doesn't drive me to come back to see what the webmaster has been doing to the site. Usually I'm looking for something -- news, when Daylight Savings Time starts, how many DIMMs a motherboard can take, whether my library has a given book.
When I go to fordvehicles.com, I'm not looking for a random "interactive movie" -- I want to know where I can find a dealership. I want to know what features are on this year's models. I'm not saying to myself "Hmm...where can I find a moving interface laden with lots of little movie transitions...oh, I know! I'll try fordvehicles.com...and while I'm there, if I like it enough, maybe I'll buy a car!"
Why do you think magazines look like they look?
It depends on the magazine. Look at, say, Forbes. You won't see goth text, purple backdrops, or pseudo-metal rims on the page edges.
Also, magazines are a "push" medium. My subscription comes to me, and I get it. I'm usually not looking for a particular piece of information, nor am I usually in a rush to get that data -- I'm reading in the bathroom or while waiting for my lunch to arrive.
Websites are a "pull" medium. I'm looking for data, and the more screwing around I have to do with some moving, jiggling, unusual interface, the harder it is for me to get what I'm looking for.
People want webpages to seem alive.
Perhaps you do. I can live without my text organically pulsing.
People want an interactive web.
Sure, there are times when interactivity can be handy. Slashdot lets me click "select all" to mark messages for deletion, for example. There are also times when it's entirely pointless and irritating, like menus that popup unbidden when I simply pass the mouse over them.
You are all used to seeing pages like CGIwrap's webpage [cgiwrap.com] that is an assault to the eyes at the expense of being compatable with all browsers including lynx and mosaic.
Actually, I find this website to be rather clean and easy to navigate.
Or, you might get as advanced as the apache webpage [apache.org] which is not as much an assault on the senses, but is still boring.
Still pretty decent.
I don't care what this loser says,
Oh.
he needs to get out of the ninteys and give people what they want.
I'm you on the "what they want" bit, though I suspect that "what they want" may be a bit different.
It's all about target marketing.
Um...all right.
Linux geeks are content to see pages like the cgi-wrap page.
Yup.
HOWEVER, normal people are impressed by things that move, things that make noise, things that interact.
"Normal people" are two year olds? Sure, there was some novelty when Flash first came out, but the model that was being proposed in the early days of web design (that people would "keep coming back to your site to see your improvements") simply didn't pan out. Content is what draws people and builds a lasting interest. Cheap novelty just gets in the way after people got familiar with the Web.
You're suggesting we should give people a bycicle because it'll get them from a to b and it's easy to use. But there will always be a market for flashy sport compacts, and if you ignore these people in favor of backwards compatability, you're going to alienate a good section of the population.
Bit of a loaded metaphor. I'd consider what I'm proposing to be more usable and powerful than what you are.
Take a look, for example, at the 2 Advanced Studios [2advanced.com] webpage. Tell me you've seen a cooler webpage, and I'll tell you you're lying.
Well, let's see. They've got a big page with no useful information or links at startup (sorry, perhaps it comes up with Flash, but like many people that have gotten tired of the Web playing movies and sounds at them, I've disabled Flash). There's a nice big "site requrements" page, implying that someone would actually upgrade either their browser, their plugin, their *processor*, or change their monitor/bit depth to use the website. That, frankly, smacks of unprofessionalism -- failing to cater to the user. It looks to me rather like a teenage hobbyist web designer's page.
Or, take a look at some [spacex.com] of the work [westonfl.org] they've done [fordvehicles.com].
All of which come up as broken embed icons to me, since I don't use Flash. Even with people that do use Flash, instability has long been a hallmark of webbrowsers rendering Flash -- this may have changed in the last two years or so, but I haven't really paid much attention.
Making a good looking, interactive page, with javascript menus, flash animations, etc, means "I have taken an interest in my work, and I care what it looks like".
Actually, the end user isn't looking for that sentiment at all, and hasn't remotely considered the web designer or HTML or anything like that. He's thinking "where's what I'm looking for?" Put in Javascript menus and you alienate people like my sister, who has a slow computer, my parents, who can't get comfortable with things *happening* when they simply move the mouse around to go elsewhere, me (who hates mouseless rollovers and Flash).
Some of you may have seen his XHTML bullshit at the top of this page and thought, "Oh, wow, this guy is great. This page is so readable, and so well organized." But, what most of the rest of us that live in reality said was "Jesus, that's aweful. It looks like he made it with an old copy of Frontpage 98 that was included with his windows 98 install". It looks aweful.
And so it should have Javascript menus and be significantly less navigable?
For example, this guy is claiming that flash intros suck.
Yup, nothing like waiting through a 15 second intro to see a website to improve usability.
Some of them do, but done right, it definately adds to the "wow" factor of the website. And the "wow" factor makes you money, or gets you accolades, not the "this will work in every browser ever, including my cell phone and my command line" factor.
The end user doesn't give a shit about accolades, any more than he does what marketing awards were given to the guy that designed the Viewsonic logo when he buys his monitor.
As for money -- you know what two of the most heavily used websites in the world are? Google and Yahoo. You know what? Both are fairly simple and minimalistic. You know what else? They beat out their competition, which put tons of sidebars, tables, and all sorts of crap in on their pages during the portal craze. Google is a great example of what I'm talking about. People what their information, and they don't want to screw around getting it. The dot coms that assumed people did because "conventional wisdom" said they did are all dead now. Maybe a bored 12-year-old at school gets a few moments of interest out of the bitmapped Javascript menus that you put so much stock in. I can guarantee you that the working adult is not interested in blowing an extra ten minutes on a website when he's looking for something, though.
Get with the times. There are graphic designs artists and webpage designers for a reason. The reason is because they know how to make a page look better than you do.
My entire point is that I *shouldn't* dictate what the page looks like. The *user* should be able to do that. I should be able to dictate the content in it. If the user likes that soft gray tech look on midnight blue that you seem to favor, that can be done. If the user doesn't see too well, the font can be enlarged (which *cannot* be done with your bitmapped interfaces, but *can* on the single site you were insulting). This is not 1% of the population -- most 50+ish year olds I've seen end up increasing the font size well above what I use, or squint at the screen. Same for blind/deaf/WebTV/Linux/MacOS/alternative browser users/cell users...
This guy's just a douche that's to stupid to smell the change and know he's obsolete. People like him are the reason it's ok to have a website that looks like shit, and I say I've had enough.
Ah.
Wine *is* native. I can write an application and link against DirectX. A "native implementation" would be exactly what is in WINE (though perhaps packaged separately from the rest of WINE).
No, it just means that they accidently overpurchased those $5 NCD thin clients and they're "saving money for the city of Largo" again by reselling them...at a hefty profit.
If you get an iBook for free, its equivalent to going to school for a free semester.
And if you jack your tuition up and give away "free" laptops, it's equivalent to getting the students to subsidize your purchases of newer computer systems (to replace the aging ones being given to the students).
And *then*, if you can get your college on Slashdot...you're just rolling in good fortune.
hack mine into submission
You trust your electronic banking to an unsupported hack you're going to whip up?
You're braver than I am...
impression...they are providing less services than some other cities
I was pretty impressed, actually? What "services" does your city provide that this one isn't?
It's still worth it -- look at their savings -- that's including their salary. If you pay more to get one knowledgeable IT person and he saves you tons on software and hardware...that's a pretty good investment.
appoint itself a "Marketing Spokesperson".
WTF do you think all the distros do?
The Penguin logo MUST go ASAP.
Ah, yes. Goofy. Much like an apple with a bite out of it, or somesuch. Yes, I'm sure there are tons of IT people turning down Linux because they don't like the logo.
Downplay RMS, Linus, ESR, etc.
When a big IT department wants to buy Linux, they talk to Red Hat, not to the Linux Kernel Mailing List. This is not an issue.
DirectX
Oh, come on. I *know* you know about WINE.
Finally FOCUS GROUPS
Golly gee, that would be what Sun was doing with GNOME, wouldn't it? Or *any* of the big vendors do. Hmm...
And it's got crazy heat and humidity and mosquitos for the rest of the summer.
Besides, I lived where it didn't snow in winter for years -- no fun. Snow is great.
This may be the first time something potentially important hit Slashdot before being reported elsewhere! :-)
HTML *used* to be perfectly accessable. It was *beautifully* designed so that anyone could use it. It's with all the new layout-oriented stuff that people start being made miserable -- some browsers can't display some sites properly, blind/deaf people are put at a disadvantage, you need a fair amount of CPU time just to browse web pages.
Tables for formatting are dead
How about *not* trying to force a format on the end user?
as long as you don't care about the little things (like font size, positioning, etc.) across multiple browsers
No *kidding*. The *point* of HTML is that the author should *not* care or try to force a font size on the end user -- the end user should be free to choose whatever's most convenient for them.
Unfortunately, the market got flooded with "web designers" who came straight from print magazines or got all their ideas from print magazines.
If you *really* want to be true to the content-separation ideology (the way HTML really should be done), you shouldn't use underline at all -- instead, use EM or something that implies emphasis. The user may be using a system that does not support underlining, or may not like the use of underlining on his web page.
Of course, few web designers are capable of designing a proper HTML page, so most of this isn't cared about any more.
The *entire point* is that it *isn't* too large. Your *client* may well preset it as too large, but his XHTML file is entirely correct -- written as HTML was supposed to be written. Not with all this invisible table and forced positioning and crap forced through with CSS and stuff like that.
i only go to the bathroom/kitched/whatever during the commercials to begin with!
True, but that alone doesn't eliminate the value of ads -- do you *always* leave the room during a commercial break?
Emacs
I believe there's already a MacOS-native emacs -- you don't need X for it.
A few thoughts -- there *have* to be existing ssh clients -- I remember BetterTelnet and similar for classic Mac OS.
Is it possible to set up an ssh server, then set up an SSH client that's scripted to ssh into the local machine? A bit of a hack, but as long as you aren't opening tons of terminals, it should provide you with a more reasonable environment without a tremendous amount of work on your part.
Your point about xdvi is well-taken too. Why is xdvi so much faster than gv? Is it *that* much easier to render DVIs than postscript files?
Second, I'd suggest rxvt over xterm. Rxvt is the end-all be-all of terminals. It's extremely fast (try catting 50 megs of text in a couple terminals and time it -- it'll win), very lightweight (less RAM usage than any other terminal I know of) and has all the features anyone could possibly use. Oh, and it lets you compile out features that you definitely aren't going to use during runtime. Nice bit of software.
You ever notice how moderating useful posts Offtopic has little or no point? For Chrissake, if you want to call Offtopic on someone, go after the "SOVIET RUSSIA" guy or someone who's detracting from the forum, not helpful posts.
.sig reads "I metamoderate all Offtopic moderations Unfair", which I'm starting to agree with. Go blow your mod points on trolls, not on helpful discussion.
There's at least one user now whose
The reason identd is required is pretty straightforward, actually.
Say I get on an IRC server and start abusing it. It's pretty easy to just ban my IP (or in extreme cases, up to my class B if dynamic IPs are in use and there's no better solution). So single-user machines are pretty easy to handle.
A not-unreasonable people still use public access machines, however. And you can't just ban their IPs without potentially screwing a lot of people -- if I ban MITs or CMU's public access UNIX boxes, I'm going to hurt a lot of people to block one baddie. However, these machines can be trusted to run a legtimate identd, so I can say "Don't block *everyone* on these machines...just this one user".
Granted, the utility value of identd is less now that Windows machines and single-user UNIX machines are dominant, but it still does solve a nasty problem sometimes.
However, even given that identd helps, I don't see why it's *required*. You can just say "if the remote host isn't running identd, just ban the entire IP if we get a baddie on that machine".