Excuse me? What kind of "web apps" do you write in DHTML? Ever hear of server side programming?
the customer doesn't want to spend the extra time, money, and headaches trying to get a web app working in Netscape.
What? The customer doesn't want to spend time and money....or you don't?
I'd bet that Slashdot's "web puke" is infinitely more complicated than whatever you churn out with DHTML.
Netscape is all but dead for Intranets except in a few companies, namely IBM.
Ever think that's because IBM specialized in enterprise solutions which do not include Windows? Is Sun a "dead" company as well? I'm sure they use IE out the wazoo there.
"Work nice" or "look nice"? This seems to be a point of confusion in web designing, i.e. the two are synonymous.
Most designers seem to think "look nice" means "look the same", which is simply not true. The only requirement for portability is that the content be available, not the site format.
And if you had any knowledge about designing whatsoever, you'd know that making an accessible sites certainly does not "double development efforts". Doing things the "right way" isn't a matter of project time, it's a matter of education, something which 95% of "web designers" don't have.
Absolutely correct. Netscape 4, with correct (X)HTML, will just look "weird" and only if you compare it to other browsers. Half the time, one may not know if he does not compare. Otherwise it works fine. Much of the perceived problems with Netscape and CSS comes from mixing HTML format tags with CSS. While this should be possible, it's a big no-no in Netscape.
Also correct about IE3. Since IE3 allows for external style sheets to change text color but not background color, it's completely at the whim of the user's color settings to whether or not the page will be readable. The only way around this is to make vanilla pages or place the colors in every HTML document, the latter going against HTML maintainability.
The WORST part about IE3 is there's no way to turn the CSS off! And don't get me started on font units...
Finally, in the beginning, I went for a stylistic site that would render in every browser ever made. Every page validates as XTHML Strict, and the CSS file(s) validate with no errors or warnings. At this point, IE3 is the *ONLY* browser that will not render the page correctly. I tested ancient versions of Mosaic, Netscape, IE2 (which has a MUCH better parser than IE3), and all the major browsers, of course. Pretty much the only way to get IE3 to work would be to delete the CSS file.
In my opinion, it's just not worth it. Were I employed, my design would reach over 99% of the audience, which is far greater than most sites.
Everytime someone time someone tells you they *NEED* these wizzo features to be successful and it'll only work on IE, point them to eBay, Amazon, and Yahoo.
Why do programmers assume users want browser-integrated IRC clients? If you know what IRC is, you know where to get an IRC client. Period. The same goes with USENET, Gopher, and a host of other protocols.
Hundreds of competent IRC clients exist. Why not simply point a user to one of those with simple instructions for use? If you *really* want a "browser" IRC client, use Java. Why on earth you would even attempt to do this with HTML is beyond me. Active-X is a little more reasonable, but since free (beer at least) Java IRC clients already exist, it's puzzling why you wouldn't even consider using those.
You are correct in that Newton's Laws are really proven false (by those expensive experiments in the late 1800s and early 1900s), but there's a difference here. Newton's Laws were dogma for so long (200 years or so) and are still such good approximations that no one ever got around to demoting them as "laws". As long as your inertial frames are almost identical (which is the case in simple mechanics), Newton's formulas do just fine. Given that your frames are "very close", Newton's Laws will always give you a good approximation, which is why they're still considered laws, I guess.
Contrary, Moore's Law isn't even an established law: it's just something the co-founder of Intel said while trying to pitch his IPO. I don't have the data, so I'm not even sure how accurate the rule is. As it stands, the rule is kind of like saying, "You should only need four or five gallons of gas to make a 100 mile trip."
Moore's rule (or whatever) must hold in every case, without exception, until the end of time, no questions asked, to be considered as a conventional law.
Now, if it was called "Moore's Law of Transistor Growth from 1965 to 2000" where transistor count would double every 18 to 20 months, then this would be a law for that specific time period (given if it really held in that entire time frame).
You read waaaaaay too deep into my post there, buddy. I never made any such comments about Linux ruling or Windows sucking, nor did I say I revered Linus as an all-knowing god. I merely said (or suggested) that the questions were condescending and almost malicious, in my opinion.
I read the first question as, "Is your OS half as good as your competitors'?" Come on. This is like asking Pepsi if their soft drinks taste "somewhat as good" than Coke's. What do you expect them to say? "No, our drinks suck?"
Personally, I think this interview was very poorly done. The first question is really two questions, and only the second question is relevant. The first question should have been omitted completely.
I will agree with you that, "What advantages does Linux have over competitors?" is a valid question, but not, "Why would anybody use your cruddy OS when they can use Windows 2000 or another UNIX?" which is basically what the interview said.
Re:Linus should have his own action-figure line
on
Linus Talks About 2.4
·
· Score: 4
Kids could learn important spacial and social skills
hahahaha, learning social skills from a coder, that's funny.
Personally, I think we should have 1-900-LINUSEX where you can have phone sex with a real Linus impersonator!
Mmmm, I'm thinking of something that's 2.4, but it's not my kernel.
Ohhhh, let me unroll your tarball, big boy.
The possibilities (and cash flow) would be endless...
About the only "non standard" thing in here is the GPU, but since the X-Box uses a Direct-X API, anyway, that won't matter. The X-Box is designed so you can almost literally take your Windows 32 code and recompile it for the X-Box.
Why should anybody use Linux?
Why don't you just quit?
Why don't you get back to work?
That's basically it. No wonder he hates the press.
Re:Framebuffer not faster on most cards
on
GTK+ without X!
·
· Score: 1
I use the aty128fb driver for my ATI Rage 128. It's significantly faster than the stock VESA buffer from what I can tell, but it's still pretty slow and laggy.
Some of the ModPlug XMMS code has some minor Hungarian to it (ModPlug originally being from Windows 32), but it's restricted to one or two letter prefixes, so I'm not even sure if that counts.
I almost forgot about that, but most Celeron As above 400 MHz (I think) were Socket 370. Then again, upgrading from "above 400 MHz" machine to an 800 MHz one seems a bit dubious.
When I watch Discovery shows, people are often using TWM, WindowMaker, etc. Most of the time this is in the big research centers, but I saw a show about technology and law enforcement that had an officer using WindowMaker.
I have no clue whether these computers used Linux or not (I doubt it in the case of the research centers), but then again, does anyone know if this is really Linux we're seeing in these productions?
Anyway, it's neat and all that not EVERYBODY uses Windows, but I don't start ejaculating when I see X11 on the TV.
Yeah, there's product placement and PRODUCT PLACEMENT. For example, remember the big deal with the car every time a Bond movie is released? Or every time Ray Ban sunglasses are used in a movie? That's product placement.
Now watch some third rate sitcom where the kiddies are sitting in front of the TV (whose screen you can't see, of course) with their PlayStation controllers. They don't say it's a PlayStation, and the sound effects coming out of the TV are from 1978 Tempest or something.
Now I know those are PlayStation controllers, and probably 35% or so of the people watching also know that. But if I didn't know that, I don't think that shot of the controller is going to influence my purchasing any. It's the same thing with GNOME in this movie.
This isn't any different than selling a distribution. GNOME is free software, no one has to pay anything. If they modified the code, they probably have to release that (I'm not sure if any modifications would be considered "in house" or not).
I suspect the Celeron and PIII are the same die, perhaps with crippling fuses or bond pads on the former. Anyone know for sure?
Well, Anand Lal Shimpi knows. It says in the article:
The Celeron 800 remains unchanged from the previous Celeron processors. It is still manufactured by disabling half of the cache on low-yield Pentium IIIs that have bad cache blocks, thus giving the Celeron half the cache as well as making that cache half as associative as the Pentium III's cache. This ends up hurting the Celeron severely as it, clock for clock, is unable to outperform the Pentium III, even when both are clocked at the same FSB/memory clock.
This is nothing new, Intel (and every other chip maker) has been doing this kind of thing for years.
A little off topic, but JPEGs (and others) are indexable by comments (built into the actual JPEG). Of course I'm not sure which (if any) search engines scan image comments, but it is possible. Obviously, this feature requires users to actually prepare comments for their JPEGs, but we can't expect the search engines to compensate for our shitty sites, can we?:)
other than that, I completely agree with you. I, too, try to get friends and associates to look at the "big picture" as well, but I am often unsuccessful. If you look at ALL the big sites, what makes them good is obviously comprehensive back-end programming served up by an intuitive front-end, not goofy animations and graphics. In fact, from my experience, the only "big" companies who intensively depend on graphics and animations are Fortune 500 companies who don't even need web business.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me? What kind of "web apps" do you write in DHTML? Ever hear of server side programming?
the customer doesn't want to spend the extra time, money, and headaches trying to get a web app working in Netscape.
What? The customer doesn't want to spend time and money....or you don't?
I'd bet that Slashdot's "web puke" is infinitely more complicated than whatever you churn out with DHTML.
Netscape is all but dead for Intranets except in a few companies, namely IBM.
Ever think that's because IBM specialized in enterprise solutions which do not include Windows? Is Sun a "dead" company as well? I'm sure they use IE out the wazoo there.
"Work nice" or "look nice"? This seems to be a point of confusion in web designing, i.e. the two are synonymous.
Most designers seem to think "look nice" means "look the same", which is simply not true. The only requirement for portability is that the content be available, not the site format.
And if you had any knowledge about designing whatsoever, you'd know that making an accessible sites certainly does not "double development efforts". Doing things the "right way" isn't a matter of project time, it's a matter of education, something which 95% of "web designers" don't have.
Absolutely correct. Netscape 4, with correct (X)HTML, will just look "weird" and only if you compare it to other browsers. Half the time, one may not know if he does not compare. Otherwise it works fine. Much of the perceived problems with Netscape and CSS comes from mixing HTML format tags with CSS. While this should be possible, it's a big no-no in Netscape.
Also correct about IE3. Since IE3 allows for external style sheets to change text color but not background color, it's completely at the whim of the user's color settings to whether or not the page will be readable. The only way around this is to make vanilla pages or place the colors in every HTML document, the latter going against HTML maintainability.
The WORST part about IE3 is there's no way to turn the CSS off! And don't get me started on font units...
Finally, in the beginning, I went for a stylistic site that would render in every browser ever made. Every page validates as XTHML Strict, and the CSS file(s) validate with no errors or warnings. At this point, IE3 is the *ONLY* browser that will not render the page correctly. I tested ancient versions of Mosaic, Netscape, IE2 (which has a MUCH better parser than IE3), and all the major browsers, of course. Pretty much the only way to get IE3 to work would be to delete the CSS file.
In my opinion, it's just not worth it. Were I employed, my design would reach over 99% of the audience, which is far greater than most sites.
hear, hear.
Everytime someone time someone tells you they *NEED* these wizzo features to be successful and it'll only work on IE, point them to eBay, Amazon, and Yahoo.
Why do programmers assume users want browser-integrated IRC clients? If you know what IRC is, you know where to get an IRC client. Period. The same goes with USENET, Gopher, and a host of other protocols.
Hundreds of competent IRC clients exist. Why not simply point a user to one of those with simple instructions for use? If you *really* want a "browser" IRC client, use Java. Why on earth you would even attempt to do this with HTML is beyond me. Active-X is a little more reasonable, but since free (beer at least) Java IRC clients already exist, it's puzzling why you wouldn't even consider using those.
HTML validators attempt to do just this. As long as you don't get too crazy with JavaScript and CSS, HTML compliant code can take you a long way.
Macs format 2 MB disks to 1.6 MB, I believe. You can format disks on PCs to this capacity (and higher!) as well.
You are correct in that Newton's Laws are really proven false (by those expensive experiments in the late 1800s and early 1900s), but there's a difference here. Newton's Laws were dogma for so long (200 years or so) and are still such good approximations that no one ever got around to demoting them as "laws". As long as your inertial frames are almost identical (which is the case in simple mechanics), Newton's formulas do just fine. Given that your frames are "very close", Newton's Laws will always give you a good approximation, which is why they're still considered laws, I guess.
Contrary, Moore's Law isn't even an established law: it's just something the co-founder of Intel said while trying to pitch his IPO. I don't have the data, so I'm not even sure how accurate the rule is. As it stands, the rule is kind of like saying, "You should only need four or five gallons of gas to make a 100 mile trip."
Moore's rule (or whatever) must hold in every case, without exception, until the end of time, no questions asked, to be considered as a conventional law.
Now, if it was called "Moore's Law of Transistor Growth from 1965 to 2000" where transistor count would double every 18 to 20 months, then this would be a law for that specific time period (given if it really held in that entire time frame).
You read waaaaaay too deep into my post there, buddy. I never made any such comments about Linux ruling or Windows sucking, nor did I say I revered Linus as an all-knowing god. I merely said (or suggested) that the questions were condescending and almost malicious, in my opinion.
I read the first question as, "Is your OS half as good as your competitors'?" Come on. This is like asking Pepsi if their soft drinks taste "somewhat as good" than Coke's. What do you expect them to say? "No, our drinks suck?"
Personally, I think this interview was very poorly done. The first question is really two questions, and only the second question is relevant. The first question should have been omitted completely.
I will agree with you that, "What advantages does Linux have over competitors?" is a valid question, but not, "Why would anybody use your cruddy OS when they can use Windows 2000 or another UNIX?" which is basically what the interview said.
Kids could learn important spacial and social skills
hahahaha, learning social skills from a coder, that's funny.
Personally, I think we should have 1-900-LINUSEX where you can have phone sex with a real Linus impersonator!
Mmmm, I'm thinking of something that's 2.4, but it's not my kernel.
Ohhhh, let me unroll your tarball, big boy.
The possibilities (and cash flow) would be endless...
About the only "non standard" thing in here is the GPU, but since the X-Box uses a Direct-X API, anyway, that won't matter. The X-Box is designed so you can almost literally take your Windows 32 code and recompile it for the X-Box.
Why should anybody use Linux?
Why don't you just quit?
Why don't you get back to work?
That's basically it. No wonder he hates the press.
I use the aty128fb driver for my ATI Rage 128. It's significantly faster than the stock VESA buffer from what I can tell, but it's still pretty slow and laggy.
Some of the ModPlug XMMS code has some minor Hungarian to it (ModPlug originally being from Windows 32), but it's restricted to one or two letter prefixes, so I'm not even sure if that counts.
You tell me how this code is easier to read than this code.
I show these examples to a lot of people (mostly casual coders) and not one tells me that Microsoft's official Hungarian style is easier to read.
I will admit that a simple prefix makes things easier to read, but stuff like rgbsyHash is garbage.
Seriously, that's as bad as watching someone solve calculus equations. I can just see myself yelling in the theater
"The limit goes to zero!"
"Take the second derivative!"
and so on.
I almost forgot about that, but most Celeron As above 400 MHz (I think) were Socket 370. Then again, upgrading from "above 400 MHz" machine to an 800 MHz one seems a bit dubious.
When I watch Discovery shows, people are often using TWM, WindowMaker, etc. Most of the time this is in the big research centers, but I saw a show about technology and law enforcement that had an officer using WindowMaker.
I have no clue whether these computers used Linux or not (I doubt it in the case of the research centers), but then again, does anyone know if this is really Linux we're seeing in these productions?
Anyway, it's neat and all that not EVERYBODY uses Windows, but I don't start ejaculating when I see X11 on the TV.
Yeah, there's product placement and PRODUCT PLACEMENT. For example, remember the big deal with the car every time a Bond movie is released? Or every time Ray Ban sunglasses are used in a movie? That's product placement.
Now watch some third rate sitcom where the kiddies are sitting in front of the TV (whose screen you can't see, of course) with their PlayStation controllers. They don't say it's a PlayStation, and the sound effects coming out of the TV are from 1978 Tempest or something.
Now I know those are PlayStation controllers, and probably 35% or so of the people watching also know that. But if I didn't know that, I don't think that shot of the controller is going to influence my purchasing any. It's the same thing with GNOME in this movie.
Maybe the producers of Angel were afraid of being sued for "intellectual property infringement". After all, that apple logo is a trade secret.
This isn't any different than selling a distribution. GNOME is free software, no one has to pay anything. If they modified the code, they probably have to release that (I'm not sure if any modifications would be considered "in house" or not).
You can still use the BX chipset at 8*100, even though the BX is getting a bit long in the tooth.
I suspect the Celeron and PIII are the same die, perhaps with crippling fuses or bond pads on the former. Anyone know for sure?
Well, Anand Lal Shimpi knows. It says in the article:
The Celeron 800 remains unchanged from the previous Celeron processors. It is still manufactured by disabling half of the cache on low-yield Pentium IIIs that have bad cache blocks, thus giving the Celeron half the cache as well as making that cache half as associative as the Pentium III's cache. This ends up hurting the Celeron severely as it, clock for clock, is unable to outperform the Pentium III, even when both are clocked at the same FSB/memory clock.
This is nothing new, Intel (and every other chip maker) has been doing this kind of thing for years.
A little off topic, but JPEGs (and others) are indexable by comments (built into the actual JPEG). Of course I'm not sure which (if any) search engines scan image comments, but it is possible. Obviously, this feature requires users to actually prepare comments for their JPEGs, but we can't expect the search engines to compensate for our shitty sites, can we? :)
other than that, I completely agree with you. I, too, try to get friends and associates to look at the "big picture" as well, but I am often unsuccessful. If you look at ALL the big sites, what makes them good is obviously comprehensive back-end programming served up by an intuitive front-end, not goofy animations and graphics. In fact, from my experience, the only "big" companies who intensively depend on graphics and animations are Fortune 500 companies who don't even need web business.