Let me make this clear: as a prototype, and as a tech demo, Chrome is great.
But as a complete product, it's crap. I respect what the Google coders have done, but from the user point of view, it's less ready than any Firefox alpha or nightly for day to day use.
I love Firefox UI vastly better than Safari or Opera. To be other browsers are not playing in the same league with regard to UI, that's how much I prefer Firefox. I could go on and on how great it is, but why? Mainly I love how Firefox UI JUST WORKS with minimum UI elements and the elements you get are very customizable. You can argue about the aesthetic looks of the icons, but if you look beyond that, the UI is solid. Opera in particular has made some bad decisions with the tab UI and the only redeeming thing about it is how pretty it is. But look beyond prettiness and it sucks. Hire Opera graphics artist on Firefox and Firefox UI will blow all the skin-deep beauties away.
I think (and hope) EVENTUALLY Chrome will become a great browser in its own right. But right now it's not. Webkit is arguably a very good piece of code. However, I don't see any great browsers using it. Safari is not great (I don't use it on a Mac at home and I don't use it on Windows at work). Chrome is a prototype, so it doesn't count. Android is not even a prototype. All I see are blogs about it but not the real thing. Not even beta! I can't even download beta Android browser for my Blackberry. Nothing. Zero. Supposedly it's coming. Where are the phones that use it? When they appear, we'll talk about it.
Webkit could really benefit from being used by a browser with a 20% market share. So far it hasn't had such luck. As great as it may be.
Chrome is crap because it has many bugs and it lacks features. Take a look at Chrome roadmap. Wait, I can't find an official one. Suffice it to say, Google made a statement that they plan to add support for extensions. Obviously the Chrome browser is not feature complete -- not even close. So how can it be not crap? I don't know about you, but I always, always use Firefox extensions and cannot live without them. Right now I have 11 extensions loaded and I use 10 of them all the time. I sometimes use greasemonkey and sometimes I don't. I like having it there just in case any web site gives me crap I don't want to deal with.
Secondly, Chrome has bugs. Many of them. It crashes often. The fact that you have independent tabs is NO EXCUSE. Those separate processes are meant to protect you from Javascript crashes that bad website programmers subject you to and not from Chrome internal bugs.
Chrome uses more RAM than Firefox.
Firefox is a real, honest to God product. It's available right now and it works 100%. I have no complaints about it as a user and a few niggles as a developer. Chrome is basically vapor. It's a prototype of what may shape up to be a decent browser. The amount of work Chrome devs have ahead of them is staggering. It's not something they'll finish in a few months!
It's completely unfair to compare a polished, feature-complete product, with a buggy prototype.
Gecko will get 100/100 on Acid 3 in due time, I am sure of it. Gecko has always had excellent standards compliance. Just because Webkit got ACID 3 test pass first doesn't mean a hell of a lot. It means something when you rub Microsoft's nose into it, because Microsoft has no intention of ever complying with standards (due to business reasons). But Gecko is not Microsoft. It will do ACID 3, I am sure of it, and if not, there will be a damn good explanation (like maybe the standard committee saying that ACID 3 is not a good representation of standard compliance, or some such...) why not (unlike with Microsoft which basically says "f-u" as its sole reason).
So the published Gecko software performs better on ACID according to you than the published Chrome software. So you are really stretching all credulity by comparing this prototype and wishful thinking with a solid product.
Re:It gives you something just as bad...
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
"Console DRM has never affected me in any way"
It's affected me on xbox360. At one time I lost my save games on Oblivion after my xbox360 failed to connect to xbox live. As soon as I could connect to xbox live again, I got all my save games back. That was very fucked up.
There are other use cases where DRM on xbox360 fucks you over.
On PS3 I didn't have this kind of problem as of yet. This doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I just don't know. I haven't had any problem so far on the PS3.
Re:It gives you something just as bad...
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
Well said. I opposite DRM on principle, no matter how smoothly it operates. But if someone points a gun to my head I may temporarily tolerate smoother and more lenient DRM more so than the anal retentive kind. But be sure that I'll take the first feasible chance I see to get around the DRM, hack it, or to damage in any way the company that employs DRM or even the people that make the key decisions at such company.
Re:It gives you something just as bad...
on
Review: Spore
·
· Score: 1
I have issues with DRM on the consoles as well, especially xbox360 crap.
That said I own THOUSANDS of dollars worth of legitimately purchased games for many, many consoles, starting with PS1 games (that's when I got into the consoles).
So the answer to your question is a resounding YES, but with a proviso that DRM sucks everywhere, even on the console.
"Anyone who has looked at Webkit seems to fall in love with it."
Way to exaggerate. Many third-party devs go with Gecko as well. The article has the examples.
Plus, all the Webkit usages are crap. Safari is crap, so is Chrome, and Android is vapor. KHTML is crap.
I have a Macbook and I happily use Firefox 3 on it, because Safari just doesn't cut it for me. And on Windows Safari is just a dog! It's horrible, starting with the ugly UI and ending with the terrible performance and lack of features compared to Firefox.
So, what's the point of having a great rendering library if there is not a single solid product that uses it? Just because Chrome came out now some people think that EVERYONE is drooling on Webkit. Not so!
Also, you do realize Chrome and Android come from the same entity, so it's not two independent teams making the same decision. Those guys are very much influenced by each other and it makes sense for them to pick the same platform without re-evaluating everything from scratch.
Gecko, I am certain, has weaknesses. Those can be addressed. Bloat can be trimmed. Documentation can be improved. Code can be refactored in small steps to the point of being unrecognizable.
Bah, I should have qualified that to only include action oriented games that involve shooting.
There had been many significantly deep RPGs, I admit. I love RPGs and I agree with you on your general point, although I haven't played Planescape in particular.
But considering how worthless every other shooter's and "sneaker's" plot lines and characters are, I think I made a pretty good statement if we narrow it down to action games.
In particular I loathe Gears of War, Halo and Splinter Cell, which I think are pure garbage in terms of the story, feeling, depth, immersion, etc. I defecate on Gears of War in particular. I curse the day I purchased a copy of that crap. What pisses me of greatly is when people compare games like MGS to other shooters or sneakers as if they were playing on an equal playing field. It's not the same plane of gaming excellence. Hideo Kojima and his team are all alone in their domain.
"Because everyone already knows that Firefox is a bloated pig, and that Opera is much leaner."
That's just plain old misinformation. Firefox 3 is on par with Opera in terms of memory usage, and is much faster at loading pages than Opera.
In my own testing Firefox 3 was O(1) (a small constant amount) behind Opera in memory usage. It was a tiny amount and it remained pretty much the same. Basically Opera doesn't have a significant memory performance lead now, but rather, only a token lead. Considering how much more useful Firefox 3 is, when used with extensions, than Opera, Firefox 3 wins hands down.
That's true for at least the current round. Further bouts are expected and I cannot predict the results. But if things go as planned, Firefox will kick Opera's ass one more time in the next round as well.
Google's chrome got some very mixed first impressions too. So far we've seen mostly hype from Google. There is a real paucity of useful and reliable information about Google Chrome as of yet.
Funny, that coming from Hideo Kojima, whose games are the most deep in terms of their artistic value and explorations of morality, power and other concerns.
Compared to MGS, every other game is infantile and single-dimensional.
Sometimes I wish Hideo Kojima did an RPG. It would be interesting, I think.
Art, through, is not something that's easy to define. Why is painting an art and wall paint isn't? Or maybe it is, if it's done by an artist? Etc. To me, what art is and isn't is defined by the observer.
Taking a train ride is not art until you make it art, and then it is art. Anything and everything can be art if we allow it. But then you can examine a statue of David and fail to see any art there. Anything is possible. Whether the games are art or not depends on the motivations of gamers and game-making teams.
"But there has to be a better way, and I think Linus is trying to find it, as are many others."
There is no better way.
The only thing that could, maybe, big "MAYBE", be better, is if there were more than one trusted maintainer of Linus' stature that worked completely independent of Linus himself.
So, if there were 5 trees that were all equally highly respected, then instead of getting 1 chance of going through Linus to get a big audience for your patch, you'd have 5 chances.
This would only work if those trees were maintained in a very politically independent fashion.
But at the same time, I think if this happened, the trees would start to diverge and at some point may no longer be reconcilable with each other. I am not sure if this is better, but it might be what you'd prefer.
If you look at other big open source projects, getting your patches accepted there seems like a big deal, so it seems to be a trend. So, in other words, I don't think having more independent and respected maintainers would really make things easier in terms of patch acceptance.
Right on. The only people who bitch about the Awesome Bar are those that never learned how to use it properly. They just want the way it always was because they can't possibly be bothered to learn anything new. When these people go into politics we call them "conservatives". It's the same exact mindset. It's a mindset of a person who is set in stone after the age of 16 or so and pretty much dies thinking the same way they were born.
"I do not dispute that there are rare, special, self-motivated children who do well in spite of everything."
I didn't say that. The kids I had in mind both succeeded and failed, depending on the subject matter / teacher combination. I've seen a straight F kid catch interest in subject matter or get inspired by a good teacher and get a string of A's without any beatings, simply due to interest. Then when the interesting patch of information or the right teacher are gone, the kid reverts back to straight F's again. This shows to me that it's very important for schools to do a first-rate job with the kids.
"If you wish to succeed in life you largely need good academic credentials."
I am a living counter-example to what you say. I've succeeded in life and I don't have any credentials. I just have knowledge, wisdom, know-how, patience, enthusiasm, and love.
"It matters not if the student finds the material relevant, interesting, useful, or fascinating."
Why not? I guess it doesn't matter what you think of what I am saying. I should just rolls up my words in a wad of paper and shove it up your ass, right? Since it doesn't matter what anyone thinks.
Of course not.
Clearly what we all think matters. What kids think and want matters. Everyone matters and not just some people.
If someone doesn't love kids, doesn't love teaching and doesn't love the subject matter -- they should not be in school teaching. Right then and there this disqualifies 99% of all teachers I know. Now, there are people who would consider teaching (like me, for example), but I have no credentials and I doubt I ever will, because I loathe bureaucracy and institutions. Why would I subject myself to so much bullshit? Of course I wouldn't. My wife has two Masters and she still has to get "recertified" every year. And I looked at the content of these certs. It is pure trash. Basically our system is trash because it values credentials and degrees over reality of knowledge. There are people who are good at the bureaucracy game, and they excel. Unfortunately they are not the same people who are also good teachers. The two are always mutually exclusive qualities. People who love learning do not love that which inhibits or limits it.
I've yet to see any graduates that demonstrate the same level of proficiency in what I do. I know there are some. I've not met them yet though. When I was at the University, there were about 3-5 people who were roughly my equal, and I am not sure how many of them graduated. But I can tell you that all the losers who couldn't even get their homework to compile, and never mind to understand recursion, they all graduated and they are all "winners". They are all gainfully employed in the world making the crap software and gadgets you use every day. They didn't vanish. All those idiots have graduated and are successful "winners". In my book they are losers.
"What I am saying is that the single most important thing to fix education is to increase parental involvement."
I disagree. The school has to be good first and foremost. I've seen orphans and single-delinquent-parent children do well when subject matter and teachers were appropriate.
"And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they jump."
Not all conditions are nonsensical. An "if then" statement is used to express a condition. Some conditions are relevant and some are not. What I said is very relevant. Subject matter should be relevant, interesting, useful and fascinating. If it's not, it's not needed in our lives and we will resist it (and win).
"Balancing a checkbook is relevant. But do you think most kids would care or want to spend hours doing it?"
I never balance my checkbook. I still have good control on my spending by cultivating good spending habits. My spending is moderate because my desires are under control. So I don't check my balance and I know I have money.
"I find geology relevant and fascinating but most students don't. Likewise others find physics fascinating and useful. How do you define relevance? How do you define fascinating?"
There's your answer. Once size fits all education is wrong.
"Entropy isn't some abstract concept of absolute chaos."
Indeed it is. It's a concept that we use because we believe it helps us understand reality. But never forget that it's not in and of itself reality -- it is only a concept. The map is not the territory and the menu is not the dinner.
"Entropy is a physical quantity which increases with time in a closed system."
Great, except nothing in reality is a closed system. Hence, entropy right then and there become irrelevant, no thanks to me, but all thanks to how you have defined it. Entropy is a stillborn baby. Alas you can pretend-play with it and it can serve as a sort of a piss-poor doll. It's not my cup of tea.
"Life is a process which decreases entropy locally by increasing entropy globally."
Wow! What a piss-poor way to define life! We can't even begin to talk until you drop that definition. I mean, I could define "truth is anything I say" and then we can't even begin to discuss until you agree with me, but that's a very tricky-dicky way to converse, isn't it? Life is not a notion you own. As such, you have to be open to alternative definitions. If not, you are worthless as a member of society where being social means being philosophically accepting of other philosophically possible alternatives.
"The single-most important thing to "Fix Education" is to increase parental involvement"
So you are saying that there is nothing wrong with what and how we teach in the schools, and the problem is only a problem of motivation? If so, then I strongly disagree.
The curriculum in schools is crap, and many kids that otherwise would be very motivated to learn, because demotivated and disenfranchised when they see the kind of nonsensical crap they have to learn at school. So, pushing this crap harder with more beatings from parents is precisely the WRONG approach.
And it's no wonder the inspirational teachings are missing. It's not many that are inspired by crap. How many people can inspire someone to each shit for breakfast? Not many. That's not only because charisma is a rare quality. It's also because the subject matter is shit.
If the subject matter was fascinating and sensical/relevant to daily life, you'd not need saints and butchers to motivate students to learn it.
Entropy is part of life, by definition of both. Entropy as a loss of order needs order. Perfect disorder cannot experience further entropy according to our current definitions of the concept of entropy. So you need order first. In other words, entropy is not an all-encompassing concept, because there are things like order that entropy does not contain. But life, by definition, contains all that. It contains expressions of entropy and of order and of anything else too.
Life is the ground of everything. Entropy is just one of the players on the stage that is life.
Why so? It's simply defined that way. If you don't agree then you don't agree with our language and the way we use words. Entropy is just not an over-arching concept. It's very specific. But life is not a specific concept. It's very abstract and general. In fact you might even make a case that life doesn't refer to anything, since it has no opposite (death is not life's opposite, for example, for opposite of death would be birth and life is the background for both of those).
I think "times are tough" means "times are tough for you, stupid worthless little peons, but not for me -- I'm the fat cat who passes through everything to the customers and to the employees".
Of course I don't think any job is worthless. Even simple jobs need to be done and done well. The fact that our corporate kitchen often stinks after it's been mopped doesn't contribute anything to productivity, to put it mildly. Every job is important and should be respected. It's too bad execs do not understand this well these days.
Also, a decent company exec tightens his own belt when the times are tough and leads by example. Decent company execs, where the fuck are you? Do you exist anymore? I sure hope so.
"How can they do that, and yet all the great academic minds can't?"
Simple.
First:
Academics often fall pray to dogmatism and group think. Years of bureaucracy addles their minds.
Second:
The thing is that academics are not smarter than average. Academics are simply average people that work in research. They tend to know more within their fields not because they are inherently smarter, but because they are more motivated. And guess what happens with spammers and motivation? That's right! They are highly motivated and there is no bureaucracy and dogma to blind their way of thinking. They just need anything that works and they don't assume anything based on "prior research". Prior research is both a blessing and an iron ball with a chain. It's legacy and it's baggage. You're standing on the heads of the giants or on a pile of rotting corpses. You take your pick.
Learning is a good thing, but academicians, or the so-called "professional" learners should really be criticized more often than they are.
Oh man... I sooooo sympathize with you. This happened to me many times in my education so I eventually stopped giving a fuck and quit.
The thing is, I found most professors don't give a damn about their job or students, have no passion for the field they are in, TA's don't give a damn either, other students don't give a damn, and if you happen to be the only one who does give a damn, you'll be severely penalized for it.
After being penalized a few times for caring, I quit. I think the education system needs reform, and I don't mean just high schools. I mean the colleges in USA are falling apart. Maybe the University system just can't be made to work since it's so heavily institutionalize and therefore bureaucratic. Bureaucracy strongly interferes with genuine learning.
I feel sorry you had to endure that bullshit. You are a rare craftsman who makes our world a better place and it's a shame our educational system had no place for someone of your caliber.
Unfortunately Microsoft has a credibility gap, so a lot of people dismiss it without being aware of its features. No. A lot of people dismiss it while being fully aware of some technically neat features that.NET has. I can't recall it now, but.NET is not all peaches and roses -- I've heard language complaints against it that worked well in Java.
The conditions under which you are allowed to use some software are just as important as the software itself. What is the point of.NET's neat features if it's married to Microsoft? Mono is nowhere close in terms of performance and support to a first-class open source solution such as OpenJDK, so Mono is not an answer to this.
If Microsoft came to its senses and GPL'ed.NET, all the resistance to it would vanish within a day. I guarantee it. And I do mean GPL and not some anal-retentive "shared source" crap that Microsoft likes to use.
Microsoft has shown that it's a terrible and unreliable company time and time again. It simply doesn't matter how good.NET is technically because Microsoft is just a very shitty coding project partner.
If I had to chain myself to a vendor, I'd rather pick Sun or Oracle than Microsoft. I wouldn't even pick Apple.
Opera Mini 4 works flawlessly for me. The problem must be your phone. I didn't see a FF3 installation for phones, so I think you are comparing apples to oranges anyway. I'm comparing companies and their products. I wanted to make an honest comparison. I use Opera Mini 4 (4.1, actually) all the time, so I can talk honestly about it. I've also used Opera browser, but it was too long ago to talk about that. I just installed Opera 9.5, just for shits and giggles. I plan to use it once in a while just so I have some experience with it. The point is that Opera when I first used it was crappy. I hated its "MDI" interface. It didn't have tabs back then.
The point is this. If Opera can screw up Opera Mini, I am more than certain it screwed up Opera 9.5 as well. It would only take some time to find many things I hate about it. In the few seconds I used it, I already disliked the way Opera did their tabs.
Then I compared memory usage. Firefox appears to use only a tiny bit more. The difference is negligible. I'll take a tiny percentage more memory usage for a vastly superior browser. Firefox is not just technically superior. Firefox has a real community behind it. Opera, on the other hand, is just a small private company without any kind of community. And you can see why. Why would any dev freely contribute something to a for-profit, closed source app? Thus, no community support for Opera. Software freedom really does mean something to me. I also noticed that Firefox loads pages about twice as fast as Opera. Closing tabs on Opera wasn't instant for me. Blah blah blah.... Opera has flaws too.
Opera does well for a closed source company. But as long as Firefox devs remain as good and as enthusiastic as they are now, there is no way Opera can compete with Firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me make this clear: as a prototype, and as a tech demo, Chrome is great.
But as a complete product, it's crap. I respect what the Google coders have done, but from the user point of view, it's less ready than any Firefox alpha or nightly for day to day use.
Choice is good.
I love Firefox UI vastly better than Safari or Opera. To be other browsers are not playing in the same league with regard to UI, that's how much I prefer Firefox. I could go on and on how great it is, but why? Mainly I love how Firefox UI JUST WORKS with minimum UI elements and the elements you get are very customizable. You can argue about the aesthetic looks of the icons, but if you look beyond that, the UI is solid. Opera in particular has made some bad decisions with the tab UI and the only redeeming thing about it is how pretty it is. But look beyond prettiness and it sucks. Hire Opera graphics artist on Firefox and Firefox UI will blow all the skin-deep beauties away.
I think (and hope) EVENTUALLY Chrome will become a great browser in its own right. But right now it's not. Webkit is arguably a very good piece of code. However, I don't see any great browsers using it. Safari is not great (I don't use it on a Mac at home and I don't use it on Windows at work). Chrome is a prototype, so it doesn't count. Android is not even a prototype. All I see are blogs about it but not the real thing. Not even beta! I can't even download beta Android browser for my Blackberry. Nothing. Zero. Supposedly it's coming. Where are the phones that use it? When they appear, we'll talk about it.
Webkit could really benefit from being used by a browser with a 20% market share. So far it hasn't had such luck. As great as it may be.
Chrome is crap because it has many bugs and it lacks features. Take a look at Chrome roadmap. Wait, I can't find an official one. Suffice it to say, Google made a statement that they plan to add support for extensions. Obviously the Chrome browser is not feature complete -- not even close. So how can it be not crap? I don't know about you, but I always, always use Firefox extensions and cannot live without them. Right now I have 11 extensions loaded and I use 10 of them all the time. I sometimes use greasemonkey and sometimes I don't. I like having it there just in case any web site gives me crap I don't want to deal with.
Secondly, Chrome has bugs. Many of them. It crashes often. The fact that you have independent tabs is NO EXCUSE. Those separate processes are meant to protect you from Javascript crashes that bad website programmers subject you to and not from Chrome internal bugs.
Chrome uses more RAM than Firefox.
Firefox is a real, honest to God product. It's available right now and it works 100%. I have no complaints about it as a user and a few niggles as a developer. Chrome is basically vapor. It's a prototype of what may shape up to be a decent browser. The amount of work Chrome devs have ahead of them is staggering. It's not something they'll finish in a few months!
It's completely unfair to compare a polished, feature-complete product, with a buggy prototype.
Gecko will get 100/100 on Acid 3 in due time, I am sure of it. Gecko has always had excellent standards compliance. Just because Webkit got ACID 3 test pass first doesn't mean a hell of a lot. It means something when you rub Microsoft's nose into it, because Microsoft has no intention of ever complying with standards (due to business reasons). But Gecko is not Microsoft. It will do ACID 3, I am sure of it, and if not, there will be a damn good explanation (like maybe the standard committee saying that ACID 3 is not a good representation of standard compliance, or some such...) why not (unlike with Microsoft which basically says "f-u" as its sole reason).
So the published Gecko software performs better on ACID according to you than the published Chrome software. So you are really stretching all credulity by comparing this prototype and wishful thinking with a solid product.
"Console DRM has never affected me in any way"
It's affected me on xbox360. At one time I lost my save games on Oblivion after my xbox360 failed to connect to xbox live. As soon as I could connect to xbox live again, I got all my save games back. That was very fucked up.
There are other use cases where DRM on xbox360 fucks you over.
On PS3 I didn't have this kind of problem as of yet. This doesn't mean the problem isn't there. I just don't know. I haven't had any problem so far on the PS3.
Well said. I opposite DRM on principle, no matter how smoothly it operates. But if someone points a gun to my head I may temporarily tolerate smoother and more lenient DRM more so than the anal retentive kind. But be sure that I'll take the first feasible chance I see to get around the DRM, hack it, or to damage in any way the company that employs DRM or even the people that make the key decisions at such company.
I have issues with DRM on the consoles as well, especially xbox360 crap.
That said I own THOUSANDS of dollars worth of legitimately purchased games for many, many consoles, starting with PS1 games (that's when I got into the consoles).
So the answer to your question is a resounding YES, but with a proviso that DRM sucks everywhere, even on the console.
"Anyone who has looked at Webkit seems to fall in love with it."
Way to exaggerate. Many third-party devs go with Gecko as well. The article has the examples.
Plus, all the Webkit usages are crap. Safari is crap, so is Chrome, and Android is vapor. KHTML is crap.
I have a Macbook and I happily use Firefox 3 on it, because Safari just doesn't cut it for me. And on Windows Safari is just a dog! It's horrible, starting with the ugly UI and ending with the terrible performance and lack of features compared to Firefox.
So, what's the point of having a great rendering library if there is not a single solid product that uses it? Just because Chrome came out now some people think that EVERYONE is drooling on Webkit. Not so!
Also, you do realize Chrome and Android come from the same entity, so it's not two independent teams making the same decision. Those guys are very much influenced by each other and it makes sense for them to pick the same platform without re-evaluating everything from scratch.
Gecko, I am certain, has weaknesses. Those can be addressed. Bloat can be trimmed. Documentation can be improved. Code can be refactored in small steps to the point of being unrecognizable.
You didn't read the article, because it actually addresses precisely that question, especially on the second page.
Bah, I should have qualified that to only include action oriented games that involve shooting.
There had been many significantly deep RPGs, I admit. I love RPGs and I agree with you on your general point, although I haven't played Planescape in particular.
But considering how worthless every other shooter's and "sneaker's" plot lines and characters are, I think I made a pretty good statement if we narrow it down to action games.
In particular I loathe Gears of War, Halo and Splinter Cell, which I think are pure garbage in terms of the story, feeling, depth, immersion, etc. I defecate on Gears of War in particular. I curse the day I purchased a copy of that crap. What pisses me of greatly is when people compare games like MGS to other shooters or sneakers as if they were playing on an equal playing field. It's not the same plane of gaming excellence. Hideo Kojima and his team are all alone in their domain.
"Because everyone already knows that Firefox is a bloated pig, and that Opera is much leaner."
That's just plain old misinformation. Firefox 3 is on par with Opera in terms of memory usage, and is much faster at loading pages than Opera.
In my own testing Firefox 3 was O(1) (a small constant amount) behind Opera in memory usage. It was a tiny amount and it remained pretty much the same. Basically Opera doesn't have a significant memory performance lead now, but rather, only a token lead. Considering how much more useful Firefox 3 is, when used with extensions, than Opera, Firefox 3 wins hands down.
That's true for at least the current round. Further bouts are expected and I cannot predict the results. But if things go as planned, Firefox will kick Opera's ass one more time in the next round as well.
Google's chrome got some very mixed first impressions too. So far we've seen mostly hype from Google. There is a real paucity of useful and reliable information about Google Chrome as of yet.
Funny, that coming from Hideo Kojima, whose games are the most deep in terms of their artistic value and explorations of morality, power and other concerns.
Compared to MGS, every other game is infantile and single-dimensional.
Sometimes I wish Hideo Kojima did an RPG. It would be interesting, I think.
Art, through, is not something that's easy to define. Why is painting an art and wall paint isn't? Or maybe it is, if it's done by an artist? Etc. To me, what art is and isn't is defined by the observer.
Taking a train ride is not art until you make it art, and then it is art. Anything and everything can be art if we allow it. But then you can examine a statue of David and fail to see any art there. Anything is possible. Whether the games are art or not depends on the motivations of gamers and game-making teams.
"But there has to be a better way, and I think Linus is trying to find it, as are many others."
There is no better way.
The only thing that could, maybe, big "MAYBE", be better, is if there were more than one trusted maintainer of Linus' stature that worked completely independent of Linus himself.
So, if there were 5 trees that were all equally highly respected, then instead of getting 1 chance of going through Linus to get a big audience for your patch, you'd have 5 chances.
This would only work if those trees were maintained in a very politically independent fashion.
But at the same time, I think if this happened, the trees would start to diverge and at some point may no longer be reconcilable with each other. I am not sure if this is better, but it might be what you'd prefer.
If you look at other big open source projects, getting your patches accepted there seems like a big deal, so it seems to be a trend. So, in other words, I don't think having more independent and respected maintainers would really make things easier in terms of patch acceptance.
Like I said -- big MAYBE.
Right on. The only people who bitch about the Awesome Bar are those that never learned how to use it properly. They just want the way it always was because they can't possibly be bothered to learn anything new. When these people go into politics we call them "conservatives". It's the same exact mindset. It's a mindset of a person who is set in stone after the age of 16 or so and pretty much dies thinking the same way they were born.
"I do not dispute that there are rare, special, self-motivated children who do well in spite of everything."
I didn't say that. The kids I had in mind both succeeded and failed, depending on the subject matter / teacher combination. I've seen a straight F kid catch interest in subject matter or get inspired by a good teacher and get a string of A's without any beatings, simply due to interest. Then when the interesting patch of information or the right teacher are gone, the kid reverts back to straight F's again. This shows to me that it's very important for schools to do a first-rate job with the kids.
"If you wish to succeed in life you largely need good academic credentials."
I am a living counter-example to what you say. I've succeeded in life and I don't have any credentials. I just have knowledge, wisdom, know-how, patience, enthusiasm, and love.
"It matters not if the student finds the material relevant, interesting, useful, or fascinating."
Why not? I guess it doesn't matter what you think of what I am saying. I should just rolls up my words in a wad of paper and shove it up your ass, right? Since it doesn't matter what anyone thinks.
Of course not.
Clearly what we all think matters. What kids think and want matters. Everyone matters and not just some people.
If someone doesn't love kids, doesn't love teaching and doesn't love the subject matter -- they should not be in school teaching. Right then and there this disqualifies 99% of all teachers I know. Now, there are people who would consider teaching (like me, for example), but I have no credentials and I doubt I ever will, because I loathe bureaucracy and institutions. Why would I subject myself to so much bullshit? Of course I wouldn't. My wife has two Masters and she still has to get "recertified" every year. And I looked at the content of these certs. It is pure trash. Basically our system is trash because it values credentials and degrees over reality of knowledge. There are people who are good at the bureaucracy game, and they excel. Unfortunately they are not the same people who are also good teachers. The two are always mutually exclusive qualities. People who love learning do not love that which inhibits or limits it.
I've yet to see any graduates that demonstrate the same level of proficiency in what I do. I know there are some. I've not met them yet though. When I was at the University, there were about 3-5 people who were roughly my equal, and I am not sure how many of them graduated. But I can tell you that all the losers who couldn't even get their homework to compile, and never mind to understand recursion, they all graduated and they are all "winners". They are all gainfully employed in the world making the crap software and gadgets you use every day. They didn't vanish. All those idiots have graduated and are successful "winners". In my book they are losers.
"Actually, we can't begin to talk until you can demonstrate that you actually know something about entropy. No sign of that so far!"
You first. I have doubts about your understanding of entropy myself.
"What I am saying is that the single most important thing to fix education is to increase parental involvement."
I disagree. The school has to be good first and foremost. I've seen orphans and single-delinquent-parent children do well when subject matter and teachers were appropriate.
"And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they jump."
Not all conditions are nonsensical. An "if then" statement is used to express a condition. Some conditions are relevant and some are not. What I said is very relevant. Subject matter should be relevant, interesting, useful and fascinating. If it's not, it's not needed in our lives and we will resist it (and win).
"Balancing a checkbook is relevant. But do you think most kids would care or want to spend hours doing it?"
I never balance my checkbook. I still have good control on my spending by cultivating good spending habits. My spending is moderate because my desires are under control. So I don't check my balance and I know I have money.
"I find geology relevant and fascinating but most students don't. Likewise others find physics fascinating and useful. How do you define relevance? How do you define fascinating?"
There's your answer. Once size fits all education is wrong.
"Entropy isn't some abstract concept of absolute chaos."
Indeed it is. It's a concept that we use because we believe it helps us understand reality. But never forget that it's not in and of itself reality -- it is only a concept. The map is not the territory and the menu is not the dinner.
"Entropy is a physical quantity which increases with time in a closed system."
Great, except nothing in reality is a closed system. Hence, entropy right then and there become irrelevant, no thanks to me, but all thanks to how you have defined it. Entropy is a stillborn baby. Alas you can pretend-play with it and it can serve as a sort of a piss-poor doll. It's not my cup of tea.
"Life is a process which decreases entropy locally by increasing entropy globally."
Wow! What a piss-poor way to define life! We can't even begin to talk until you drop that definition. I mean, I could define "truth is anything I say" and then we can't even begin to discuss until you agree with me, but that's a very tricky-dicky way to converse, isn't it? Life is not a notion you own. As such, you have to be open to alternative definitions. If not, you are worthless as a member of society where being social means being philosophically accepting of other philosophically possible alternatives.
"The single-most important thing to "Fix Education" is to increase parental involvement"
So you are saying that there is nothing wrong with what and how we teach in the schools, and the problem is only a problem of motivation? If so, then I strongly disagree.
The curriculum in schools is crap, and many kids that otherwise would be very motivated to learn, because demotivated and disenfranchised when they see the kind of nonsensical crap they have to learn at school. So, pushing this crap harder with more beatings from parents is precisely the WRONG approach.
And it's no wonder the inspirational teachings are missing. It's not many that are inspired by crap. How many people can inspire someone to each shit for breakfast? Not many. That's not only because charisma is a rare quality. It's also because the subject matter is shit.
If the subject matter was fascinating and sensical/relevant to daily life, you'd not need saints and butchers to motivate students to learn it.
"Life is part of entropy."
Is it? Are you sure?
Entropy is part of life, by definition of both. Entropy as a loss of order needs order. Perfect disorder cannot experience further entropy according to our current definitions of the concept of entropy. So you need order first. In other words, entropy is not an all-encompassing concept, because there are things like order that entropy does not contain. But life, by definition, contains all that. It contains expressions of entropy and of order and of anything else too.
Life is the ground of everything. Entropy is just one of the players on the stage that is life.
Why so? It's simply defined that way. If you don't agree then you don't agree with our language and the way we use words. Entropy is just not an over-arching concept. It's very specific. But life is not a specific concept. It's very abstract and general. In fact you might even make a case that life doesn't refer to anything, since it has no opposite (death is not life's opposite, for example, for opposite of death would be birth and life is the background for both of those).
Well said.
I think "times are tough" means "times are tough for you, stupid worthless little peons, but not for me -- I'm the fat cat who passes through everything to the customers and to the employees".
Of course I don't think any job is worthless. Even simple jobs need to be done and done well. The fact that our corporate kitchen often stinks after it's been mopped doesn't contribute anything to productivity, to put it mildly. Every job is important and should be respected. It's too bad execs do not understand this well these days.
Also, a decent company exec tightens his own belt when the times are tough and leads by example. Decent company execs, where the fuck are you? Do you exist anymore? I sure hope so.
"How can they do that, and yet all the great academic minds can't?"
Simple.
First:
Academics often fall pray to dogmatism and group think. Years of bureaucracy addles their minds.
Second:
The thing is that academics are not smarter than average. Academics are simply average people that work in research. They tend to know more within their fields not because they are inherently smarter, but because they are more motivated. And guess what happens with spammers and motivation? That's right! They are highly motivated and there is no bureaucracy and dogma to blind their way of thinking. They just need anything that works and they don't assume anything based on "prior research". Prior research is both a blessing and an iron ball with a chain. It's legacy and it's baggage. You're standing on the heads of the giants or on a pile of rotting corpses. You take your pick.
Learning is a good thing, but academicians, or the so-called "professional" learners should really be criticized more often than they are.
Oh man... I sooooo sympathize with you. This happened to me many times in my education so I eventually stopped giving a fuck and quit.
The thing is, I found most professors don't give a damn about their job or students, have no passion for the field they are in, TA's don't give a damn either, other students don't give a damn, and if you happen to be the only one who does give a damn, you'll be severely penalized for it.
After being penalized a few times for caring, I quit. I think the education system needs reform, and I don't mean just high schools. I mean the colleges in USA are falling apart. Maybe the University system just can't be made to work since it's so heavily institutionalize and therefore bureaucratic. Bureaucracy strongly interferes with genuine learning.
I feel sorry you had to endure that bullshit. You are a rare craftsman who makes our world a better place and it's a shame our educational system had no place for someone of your caliber.
The conditions under which you are allowed to use some software are just as important as the software itself. What is the point of .NET's neat features if it's married to Microsoft? Mono is nowhere close in terms of performance and support to a first-class open source solution such as OpenJDK, so Mono is not an answer to this.
If Microsoft came to its senses and GPL'ed .NET, all the resistance to it would vanish within a day. I guarantee it. And I do mean GPL and not some anal-retentive "shared source" crap that Microsoft likes to use.
Microsoft has shown that it's a terrible and unreliable company time and time again. It simply doesn't matter how good .NET is technically because Microsoft is just a very shitty coding project partner.
If I had to chain myself to a vendor, I'd rather pick Sun or Oracle than Microsoft. I wouldn't even pick Apple.
The point is this. If Opera can screw up Opera Mini, I am more than certain it screwed up Opera 9.5 as well. It would only take some time to find many things I hate about it. In the few seconds I used it, I already disliked the way Opera did their tabs.
Then I compared memory usage. Firefox appears to use only a tiny bit more. The difference is negligible. I'll take a tiny percentage more memory usage for a vastly superior browser. Firefox is not just technically superior. Firefox has a real community behind it. Opera, on the other hand, is just a small private company without any kind of community. And you can see why. Why would any dev freely contribute something to a for-profit, closed source app? Thus, no community support for Opera. Software freedom really does mean something to me. I also noticed that Firefox loads pages about twice as fast as Opera. Closing tabs on Opera wasn't instant for me. Blah blah blah.... Opera has flaws too.
Opera does well for a closed source company. But as long as Firefox devs remain as good and as enthusiastic as they are now, there is no way Opera can compete with Firefox.