I'm not sure that the sane folks are saying "DEATH TO SECURED COMPUTING" as it has a practical application in locking down very specific systems, but YOU need to be AFRAID of this thing getting into your box. Companies like IE, HP, IBM and the like have the power to put this stuff in there, and as long as most users are happy (believe me, these companies will try to keep it that way), this stuff will roll out without much of a fuss.
Then they can slowly tweak their usage of this technology. Turn the heat up slowly and the lobster won't jump out...
You and I need to be very vigilant to ensure that this doesn't start controlling how we, the normal user, use our own bought-and-paid-for computers. Education is the only way, because of the sheeple don't care, it's going to happen and the DMCA will prevent you from doing much about it.
There are many things to fight for in this world. Since computers are my life, fighting for my right to use my computer as I see fit is important to me.
Same experience here. Three boxes running ~x86 tree, very few problems.
It's absolutely sad when I think that my Win2K installation and its applications crash far more than my "unstable" tree of Gentoo, a supposedly already "hard-core, bleeding edge" distro.
Don't I recall that Disney (or another big name video editing company) was contributing at least part of their video editing product to OSS in the hopes that they could get free development in exchange for helping all those Linux nuts who do video editing?
Once Linux gets a larger userbase (it's growing faster on the desktop end than some folks realize), I think this will be a more common occurrence.
And MS stock IE still doesn't have tabs... or popup blocking...
I'm not trying to argue, I agree wholeheartedly, but MS is getting pretty slow here. They just put in virtual desktops -- those have been in KDE for how long?
They're really going to have to work too. Open software like the Mozilla engine is really starting to eat their lunch. Since the work is done for them, folks can take the Mozilla engine and build an awesome GUI on top of it (Galeon) and begin to introduce features. Tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, mouse gestures... MS looks like it's standing still in a few of these races.
IE still has a stranglehold, but I would say a majority of "computer literate" folks are going to Mozilla/Opera, etc. It's interesting to see little action from MS.
1) 10 ways to do anything Give the user as many pathways of doing something as possible. An experimenting user will try different approaches, and if the developer doesn't limit the pathways to what he thinks is logical, the user is likely to accomplish their task in a way that makes sense to them. This means they like the software more and have a better chance at remembering how to accomplish a given task. Most folks complain about using/learning new software just because things don't make sense to them. They have to either memorize how things are done (most users), or they have to learn "computer logic" and learn how GUIs generally function.
2) Options, options, options! The power-users, control freaks and tweakers out there (I'm one of them) love to play with stuff. Why limit an application to a newbie? You don't have to...
3) Good defaults A newbie won't go looking to change the way his tabs work. This is the major flaw of "keep it simple" arguments. Keeping the options dialog simple is one thing, but not having a "Advanced User" option that enables more options is restricting the program's userbase unnecessarily. You can have half a dozen ways for tabs to function, but as long as the default one makes sense to most folks and is consistent with the way the rest of the program works, newbies will be fine.
My laptop: Gentoo Linux, Gnome 2.2 (I use this at work)
Virtual desktops:
1: gnome-terminal: I typically open 4 terminals in tabs:
1: editing
2: editing
3: compiling/other CLI commands
4: misc
more as needed
2: gedit: text editor, used for notes on tasks at work. One tab per task. Sometimes I also load my VNC client here so I can work on my Windows box that typically is only used for holding my monitor up.;)
3: galeon: web browser (work related research + browsing for fun [slashdot]); each webpage I have open has its own tab.
4: evolution (email), gaim (IM), xmms (music)
For any given task, I know which desktop to go to. In addition, almost every application I use uses tabs, so for those that I deal with often (gnome-terminal), I know exactly what I'm doing in each.
What you really have to understand is that, like most folks who work on a computer all day, what I do can be very repetitive and predictable. I do the same things over and over in the same programs. With my current system, some keystrokes (like switching to my compile terminal) are so common they're second nature. No alt+tabbing through applications, I don't even have to think about it. THAT's the sign of a good GUI, when you don't notice it.;)
I honestly don't remember how I did this on Windows with alt+tab and clicking around. To be honest, the fact that I can't do this in Windows is the thing that tops my list of why Windows drives me crazy. I get batty after being forced to work without my gnome desktop for more than a few days.
And as a little note for the GNOME HUI guide: IIRC, it specifies that dialogs shouldn't use "OK" and "CANCEL" but should describe the actions, e.g. "Quit without saving?" "Discard changes" "Cancel" "Save". This goes another step to making the desktop transparent. Don't think -- just hit the keys and click the buttons that do what you want them to.:)
Technically, if they do indeed 'own' UNIX Sys V, and it is in Linux, that doesn't preclude it from being there: it's been mentioned that it got there through Caldera releasing it under a BSD-like license (IIRC).
The fact that it "shouldn't be there" doesn't necessarily mean SCO's ownership is the reason.
Never blame others and be quick to blame yourself?
I work in a chain of problem solvers to resolve client issues. Our installers install, configure and test our software. Our client services folks take client problem reports and try to resolve them.
Both groups are responsible for knowing how to set things up or getting in touch with someone who does before sending an issue to me. I'm the guy who looks at the code and fixes bugs or let the folks above me know about some obscure or seemingly unrelated setup issue.
If the first-tier folks don't do their jobs, I can spend hours dancing around crufty code attempting to spot some non-obvious setup problem which I'm not responsible for, but they're supposed to have documented. If I identify a setup problem, I send it back and tell them to fix it. If I keep doing other people's work and not sticking it to them (blaming them), I get sent more and more of these setup issues.
And you know what sucks? The one guy I work with doesn't usually stand up for himself. He just does what's handed to him. While a lot of folks view this as a good employee quality, I disagree. For one, he's doing a job he's not specialized in and is taking time away from other issues he could be looking at. For two, because he just does it, the first-tier support has already gotten used to just forwarding issues without checking them as well as they should (or at all). Now we get swamped after a client install because the installers and others are used to assuming it's not their fault.
Responsibility is something that you have to stick to people. Some folks just won't do their jobs and make you do more. Techies have the unfortunate position of being fairly low-tier: we're the last line of defense in many cases. We catch the crap that other people don't want.
I agree. The problem is that, well, security wasn't the #1.
UNIX was partially worked around college students (read: dirty, filthy hackers who love to break things and abuse power;)) logging into a very expensive mainframe and sharing the system. UNIX was born among chaos and was thus hardened.;)
Linux, in turn, inherited that system and only had to spend a little time making it easy to use (Red Carpet asks for root password, for instance -- PAM is quite useful).
Windows, on the other hand, has always been designed around a one person, non-networked system. The old win9x login screen was pretty much just for show unless you were on a Windows network.
These days, to install a program on 2k, I am unaware of any way to do it past logging out and into an admin account or setting yourself up as an admin, which defeats the purpose. I've heard that it's easier to do in XP, but it's not thoughtless just yet.
NT was a nice effort at a rewrite, but it was (and still is) obvious that security isn't their primary concern.
Hrm. If you're going after a stability sensitive machine, sure, but in that case, you shouldn't be using Windows.
If you've got a Windows box as a client, and stability and things breaking isn't a big issue, but security is, patching soon is a good common sense practice. Worst case scenario, a client goes down and you refresh it from an image (or if you're really in need of the system, swap out with a backup HD). OR, the patch introduces another hole, in which case you at least get the benefit of security through obscurity: you won't have every worm on the net going after you.
Moral of the story: if uptime and features are absolutely critical, you shouldn't be using Windows. If they aren't, you either shouldn't worry about it, have quickly usable backups, or not place the Windows computer on a critical network.
All that said, it's pretty asinine to put a Windows box in something as critical as a nuclear reactor system, even for a client.
Rules of IT: 1) Do not place a vulnerable system on a critical network unless absolutely necessary. 2) When configuring a computer/server, always assume that you are hooking up to a hostile, unfiltered network.
If they'd applied these two rules to their network, routers, servers, etc., this likely wouldn't have happened. These are pretty basic ideas, folks. If you have a Windows box on the same network as a computer controlling nuclear saftey checks, you better have a damn good reason and you better check for patches weekly.
As much as you try to offer here, this is really just speculation. Be honest: there's no more information than Microsoft FUD (a constant) and Microsoft buying SCO's UNIX (AFAIK, NOT the Linux one) licence for UNIX development purposes to make SCO look more legit thus hurting Linux more.
Past that, I don't see any reason to believe that Ballmer and Darl are buddies planning an attack together. I think that's going a little too far. I'm a big fan of Microsoft history (though I abhor the company), but it doesn't seem probable to me that they're in direct relation to this, even less likely that they're directing SCO.
If anyone has any corrections or any more information, please jump right in.
I have no doubt in my mind that MS likes this, thus why they bought a licence from SCO and issues a quiet press release supporting IP. It's a FUD victory for them without them getting their hands dirty. And if the whole thing blows up (as it is now), Microsoft isn't too close and won't get much of the back-fire.
That said, I haven't seen any other links between SCO and MS besides speculation. You mention that "we all know" that MS is behind it; can you please fill me in?
In college, you learn algorithms and theory, much of which you will forget and never use again. In addition, you do these things on your own time.
In a real job, you learn the practical algorithms that are necessary. No BS. In a real job, you are working on someone else's time, and more than likely, that person has two horns and red eyes and breathes fire when projects aren't proceeding on schedule.
Here's another way of putting it: The best way to learn to do something is to do it. In this case, "it" is working in IT. The best way to learn to work in IT is to work in IT. A college is a replication of an office environment also geared at making you more well rounded. Going to school teaches you broad concepts. Working in an office environment teaches you to work in an office environment.
Is being well rounded important? Sure! Absolutely! But is it more important than being able to get the job done on time and on budget so your company saves money and makes hordes of cash? Most likely, not in the mind of your employer.
Applying overly broad designs and coming up with complex, overly coded solutions is a common thing among folks just out of college. I'm in the business of debugging code for a living, and it's interesting to see the code written by folks just out of school.
The older, more 'mature' programmers get things done in a fast manner, follow established company guidelines to avoid needing pages of documentation, etc. They've been there and done that and know the best solutions to the problems and why they're the best solutions.
I am 150% for good comments, debugging, the works, but frankly, some folks out of college over-engineer programs just because they had the time and luxury of doing so in college.
Learning about computer science is not learning about programming.
Or putting an apostraphe to denote possession when a noun isn't plural.
Per the 1996 (or 1998, I forget which) MLA handbook, "Dalcius's ball" is the correct form. Only use 's if the noun is plural.
And anyone else get annoyed by the "Microsoft are working on..." form? Microsoft is a single entity. I don't say the class are going on a trip, I say the class is going on a trip. What's with the new format? Anyone care to explain this to me?/not an English major
Ah, yes, but other companies won't take heed if SCO isn't replaced with a stinking hole in the ground where even the heartiest weed won't grow.
SCO must be crushed, the open source community and its allies (namely, those who enjoy free development from some really smart folks) must make an example out of this little maggot so that other companies are afraid to follow in SCO's footsteps in the near future.
Are you running GNOME 2.x with GNOME 2.x compliant apps?
I took the liberty of taking some screenshots. The differences aren't killer, but IE certainly could use some anti-aliasing. Big, italic fonts or complicated fonts make IE look even worse.
True, Mozilla on Windows doesn't have AA, I should have been more clear.
In comparison to my mozilla, or beter, Galeon, on Linux w/Gnome 2, IE font rendering sucks the big one (inherent with Windows). How ironic, considering this was the biggest complaint about Linux for quite a while.
Just another feature that IE (Windows) doesn't have.
> "i find it odd that many heavily scripted pages (read webmail, and not just hotmail either) simply dont work properly on opera or mozilla, but work fine on IE's "broken" java."
CSS: There are a handful of CSS features that just don't work in IE. This is "broken." Just because a page uses a lot of CSS doesn't mean that it won't work in IE, it just means that the developers cater to IE.
Javascript: It's not strictly 'broken', IE's implementation just sucks: they make up their own standards. Again, pages work for IE because developers cater to IE. They have to. Unfortunately. This still doesn't change the reality that MS breaks standards.
As for turning off tabs, I'm curious how this is difficult? Just don't use them. Right click and hit open in a new window.
I suppose gesturing isn't for some folks. I'm addicted to it; closing windows, going back/forward, creating and flipping between tabs are about the only things I use it for, but I do them so often that I miss mouse gestures when I'm not in my browser.
If you're using Linux, you might want to try Galeon 1.2.10; turning off tabbing is trivial.
Well, I wouldn't say that evolution is behind much if at all, but it is very interesting.
IE: no tabs, no mouse gestures, no popup blocking to my knowledge, renders fonts like crap, mildly broken CSS support, broken javascript.
IE has really fallen behind in the times; Opera and Mozilla are gaining by leaps and bounds on Windows, and browsers like Galeon 1.2.10 have folks like me swooning on Linux.
Mozilla mail, Evolution and the like are now poised to become even better. With AbiWord/Open Office/Etc. getting better and better, GnuCash, gnumeric, etc....
Is this really a wise move for Microsoft, resting on their laurels?
Slashdot Mirror
Except that SCO is going after the entire method of FS/OSS development.
Diversity is great, I agree, but don't fool yourself.
I'm not sure that the sane folks are saying "DEATH TO SECURED COMPUTING" as it has a practical application in locking down very specific systems, but YOU need to be AFRAID of this thing getting into your box. Companies like IE, HP, IBM and the like have the power to put this stuff in there, and as long as most users are happy (believe me, these companies will try to keep it that way), this stuff will roll out without much of a fuss.
Then they can slowly tweak their usage of this technology. Turn the heat up slowly and the lobster won't jump out...
You and I need to be very vigilant to ensure that this doesn't start controlling how we, the normal user, use our own bought-and-paid-for computers. Education is the only way, because of the sheeple don't care, it's going to happen and the DMCA will prevent you from doing much about it.
There are many things to fight for in this world. Since computers are my life, fighting for my right to use my computer as I see fit is important to me.
Who says you can't satisfy tweakers and control-freaks and newbies at the same time?
1) Many options
2) Good defaults
3) Preferences dialog with "Advanced User" option
Same experience here. Three boxes running ~x86 tree, very few problems.
It's absolutely sad when I think that my Win2K installation and its applications crash far more than my "unstable" tree of Gentoo, a supposedly already "hard-core, bleeding edge" distro.
Don't I recall that Disney (or another big name video editing company) was contributing at least part of their video editing product to OSS in the hopes that they could get free development in exchange for helping all those Linux nuts who do video editing?
Once Linux gets a larger userbase (it's growing faster on the desktop end than some folks realize), I think this will be a more common occurrence.
And MS stock IE still doesn't have tabs... or popup blocking...
I'm not trying to argue, I agree wholeheartedly, but MS is getting pretty slow here. They just put in virtual desktops -- those have been in KDE for how long?
They're really going to have to work too. Open software like the Mozilla engine is really starting to eat their lunch. Since the work is done for them, folks can take the Mozilla engine and build an awesome GUI on top of it (Galeon) and begin to introduce features. Tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, mouse gestures... MS looks like it's standing still in a few of these races.
IE still has a stranglehold, but I would say a majority of "computer literate" folks are going to Mozilla/Opera, etc. It's interesting to see little action from MS.
Oh, rubbish. :)
There is a very simple approach here, folks:
1) 10 ways to do anything
Give the user as many pathways of doing something as possible. An experimenting user will try different approaches, and if the developer doesn't limit the pathways to what he thinks is logical, the user is likely to accomplish their task in a way that makes sense to them. This means they like the software more and have a better chance at remembering how to accomplish a given task.
Most folks complain about using/learning new software just because things don't make sense to them. They have to either memorize how things are done (most users), or they have to learn "computer logic" and learn how GUIs generally function.
2) Options, options, options!
The power-users, control freaks and tweakers out there (I'm one of them) love to play with stuff. Why limit an application to a newbie? You don't have to...
3) Good defaults
A newbie won't go looking to change the way his tabs work. This is the major flaw of "keep it simple" arguments. Keeping the options dialog simple is one thing, but not having a "Advanced User" option that enables more options is restricting the program's userbase unnecessarily.
You can have half a dozen ways for tabs to function, but as long as the default one makes sense to most folks and is consistent with the way the rest of the program works, newbies will be fine.
(I use this at work)
Virtual desktops:
For any given task, I know which desktop to go to. In addition, almost every application I use uses tabs, so for those that I deal with often (gnome-terminal), I know exactly what I'm doing in each.
What you really have to understand is that, like most folks who work on a computer all day, what I do can be very repetitive and predictable. I do the same things over and over in the same programs. With my current system, some keystrokes (like switching to my compile terminal) are so common they're second nature. No alt+tabbing through applications, I don't even have to think about it. THAT's the sign of a good GUI, when you don't notice it.
I honestly don't remember how I did this on Windows with alt+tab and clicking around. To be honest, the fact that I can't do this in Windows is the thing that tops my list of why Windows drives me crazy. I get batty after being forced to work without my gnome desktop for more than a few days.
And as a little note for the GNOME HUI guide: IIRC, it specifies that dialogs shouldn't use "OK" and "CANCEL" but should describe the actions, e.g. "Quit without saving?" "Discard changes" "Cancel" "Save". This goes another step to making the desktop transparent. Don't think -- just hit the keys and click the buttons that do what you want them to.
Er, well...
Technically, if they do indeed 'own' UNIX Sys V, and it is in Linux, that doesn't preclude it from being there: it's been mentioned that it got there through Caldera releasing it under a BSD-like license (IIRC).
The fact that it "shouldn't be there" doesn't necessarily mean SCO's ownership is the reason.
Twist, baby... do the twist!
...a team of IBM's elite patent lawyers just landed near the shield generator...
Never blame others and be quick to blame yourself?
I work in a chain of problem solvers to resolve client issues. Our installers install, configure and test our software. Our client services folks take client problem reports and try to resolve them.
Both groups are responsible for knowing how to set things up or getting in touch with someone who does before sending an issue to me. I'm the guy who looks at the code and fixes bugs or let the folks above me know about some obscure or seemingly unrelated setup issue.
If the first-tier folks don't do their jobs, I can spend hours dancing around crufty code attempting to spot some non-obvious setup problem which I'm not responsible for, but they're supposed to have documented. If I identify a setup problem, I send it back and tell them to fix it. If I keep doing other people's work and not sticking it to them (blaming them), I get sent more and more of these setup issues.
And you know what sucks? The one guy I work with doesn't usually stand up for himself. He just does what's handed to him. While a lot of folks view this as a good employee quality, I disagree. For one, he's doing a job he's not specialized in and is taking time away from other issues he could be looking at. For two, because he just does it, the first-tier support has already gotten used to just forwarding issues without checking them as well as they should (or at all). Now we get swamped after a client install because the installers and others are used to assuming it's not their fault.
Responsibility is something that you have to stick to people. Some folks just won't do their jobs and make you do more. Techies have the unfortunate position of being fairly low-tier: we're the last line of defense in many cases. We catch the crap that other people don't want.
Sorry about the rant.
I agree. The problem is that, well, security wasn't the #1.
;)) logging into a very expensive mainframe and sharing the system. UNIX was born among chaos and was thus hardened. ;)
UNIX was partially worked around college students (read: dirty, filthy hackers who love to break things and abuse power
Linux, in turn, inherited that system and only had to spend a little time making it easy to use (Red Carpet asks for root password, for instance -- PAM is quite useful).
Windows, on the other hand, has always been designed around a one person, non-networked system. The old win9x login screen was pretty much just for show unless you were on a Windows network.
These days, to install a program on 2k, I am unaware of any way to do it past logging out and into an admin account or setting yourself up as an admin, which defeats the purpose. I've heard that it's easier to do in XP, but it's not thoughtless just yet.
NT was a nice effort at a rewrite, but it was (and still is) obvious that security isn't their primary concern.
Hrm. If you're going after a stability sensitive machine, sure, but in that case, you shouldn't be using Windows.
If you've got a Windows box as a client, and stability and things breaking isn't a big issue, but security is, patching soon is a good common sense practice. Worst case scenario, a client goes down and you refresh it from an image (or if you're really in need of the system, swap out with a backup HD). OR, the patch introduces another hole, in which case you at least get the benefit of security through obscurity: you won't have every worm on the net going after you.
Moral of the story: if uptime and features are absolutely critical, you shouldn't be using Windows. If they aren't, you either shouldn't worry about it, have quickly usable backups, or not place the Windows computer on a critical network.
All that said, it's pretty asinine to put a Windows box in something as critical as a nuclear reactor system, even for a client.
Rules of IT:
1) Do not place a vulnerable system on a critical network unless absolutely necessary.
2) When configuring a computer/server, always assume that you are hooking up to a hostile, unfiltered network.
If they'd applied these two rules to their network, routers, servers, etc., this likely wouldn't have happened. These are pretty basic ideas, folks. If you have a Windows box on the same network as a computer controlling nuclear saftey checks, you better have a damn good reason and you better check for patches weekly.
As much as you try to offer here, this is really just speculation. Be honest: there's no more information than Microsoft FUD (a constant) and Microsoft buying SCO's UNIX (AFAIK, NOT the Linux one) licence for UNIX development purposes to make SCO look more legit thus hurting Linux more.
Past that, I don't see any reason to believe that Ballmer and Darl are buddies planning an attack together. I think that's going a little too far. I'm a big fan of Microsoft history (though I abhor the company), but it doesn't seem probable to me that they're in direct relation to this, even less likely that they're directing SCO.
If anyone has any corrections or any more information, please jump right in.
Cheers
I have no doubt in my mind that MS likes this, thus why they bought a licence from SCO and issues a quiet press release supporting IP. It's a FUD victory for them without them getting their hands dirty. And if the whole thing blows up (as it is now), Microsoft isn't too close and won't get much of the back-fire.
That said, I haven't seen any other links between SCO and MS besides speculation. You mention that "we all know" that MS is behind it; can you please fill me in?
Thanks
Eh, here's a clue:
In college, you learn algorithms and theory, much of which you will forget and never use again. In addition, you do these things on your own time.
In a real job, you learn the practical algorithms that are necessary. No BS. In a real job, you are working on someone else's time, and more than likely, that person has two horns and red eyes and breathes fire when projects aren't proceeding on schedule.
Here's another way of putting it:
The best way to learn to do something is to do it. In this case, "it" is working in IT. The best way to learn to work in IT is to work in IT. A college is a replication of an office environment also geared at making you more well rounded. Going to school teaches you broad concepts. Working in an office environment teaches you to work in an office environment.
Is being well rounded important? Sure! Absolutely! But is it more important than being able to get the job done on time and on budget so your company saves money and makes hordes of cash? Most likely, not in the mind of your employer.
Applying overly broad designs and coming up with complex, overly coded solutions is a common thing among folks just out of college. I'm in the business of debugging code for a living, and it's interesting to see the code written by folks just out of school.
The older, more 'mature' programmers get things done in a fast manner, follow established company guidelines to avoid needing pages of documentation, etc. They've been there and done that and know the best solutions to the problems and why they're the best solutions.
I am 150% for good comments, debugging, the works, but frankly, some folks out of college over-engineer programs just because they had the time and luxury of doing so in college.
Learning about computer science is not learning about programming.
Or putting an apostraphe to denote possession when a noun isn't plural.
..." form? Microsoft is a single entity. I don't say the class are going on a trip, I say the class is going on a trip. What's with the new format? Anyone care to explain this to me? /not an English major
Per the 1996 (or 1998, I forget which) MLA handbook, "Dalcius's ball" is the correct form. Only use 's if the noun is plural.
And anyone else get annoyed by the "Microsoft are working on
Ah, yes, but other companies won't take heed if SCO isn't replaced with a stinking hole in the ground where even the heartiest weed won't grow.
SCO must be crushed, the open source community and its allies (namely, those who enjoy free development from some really smart folks) must make an example out of this little maggot so that other companies are afraid to follow in SCO's footsteps in the near future.
SCO is a blessing: they're an easy example.
"Fire at will, commander."
Are you running GNOME 2.x with GNOME 2.x compliant apps?
I took the liberty of taking some screenshots.
The differences aren't killer, but IE certainly could use some anti-aliasing. Big, italic fonts or complicated fonts make IE look even worse.
Windows 2000 IE
Gnome 2 Galeon 1.2.10
True, Mozilla on Windows doesn't have AA, I should have been more clear.
In comparison to my mozilla, or beter, Galeon, on Linux w/Gnome 2, IE font rendering sucks the big one (inherent with Windows). How ironic, considering this was the biggest complaint about Linux for quite a while.
Just another feature that IE (Windows) doesn't have.
> "i find it odd that many heavily scripted pages (read webmail, and not just hotmail either) simply dont work properly on opera or mozilla, but work fine on IE's "broken" java."
CSS: There are a handful of CSS features that just don't work in IE. This is "broken." Just because a page uses a lot of CSS doesn't mean that it won't work in IE, it just means that the developers cater to IE.
Javascript: It's not strictly 'broken', IE's implementation just sucks: they make up their own standards. Again, pages work for IE because developers cater to IE. They have to. Unfortunately. This still doesn't change the reality that MS breaks standards.
As for turning off tabs, I'm curious how this is difficult? Just don't use them. Right click and hit open in a new window.
I suppose gesturing isn't for some folks. I'm addicted to it; closing windows, going back/forward, creating and flipping between tabs are about the only things I use it for, but I do them so often that I miss mouse gestures when I'm not in my browser.
If you're using Linux, you might want to try Galeon 1.2.10; turning off tabbing is trivial.
I just garnished this from the Gnome 2.4 preview. Open Nautilus and go to applications:/// to edit your applications menu.
:)
Easy as pie. It's actually accessable by the "Start Here" menu. All they need to do is add it to the menu and I'll be happy.
Well, I wouldn't say that evolution is behind much if at all, but it is very interesting.
IE: no tabs, no mouse gestures, no popup blocking to my knowledge, renders fonts like crap, mildly broken CSS support, broken javascript.
IE has really fallen behind in the times; Opera and Mozilla are gaining by leaps and bounds on Windows, and browsers like Galeon 1.2.10 have folks like me swooning on Linux.
Mozilla mail, Evolution and the like are now poised to become even better. With AbiWord/Open Office/Etc. getting better and better, GnuCash, gnumeric, etc....
Is this really a wise move for Microsoft, resting on their laurels?