This isn't quite the same; unless I'm missing something, it still requires binaries built for a specific platform, so an i386 build isn't going to work on an Apple machine (at least not the current ones). Whereas a Java based email client will work on any platform that has a Java-VM installed.
I've not used it, but I'm interested in looking at it because: you know with Mozilla Thunderbird, you can set it up so that your email and configuration are stored on a USB memory key, well I think it'd be far cooler if you could stick the entire email app. on the USB memory! That way, you could access your email on *any* computer regardless of OS.
But, like I say, I haven't used it.... so this may not work. But the idea is cool!!:D
The only bug I've run into, and this has happened with every version since 1.0, is sometimes my bookmarks scroll backwards when there are too many to display on the menu. I'll mouse over the scroller arrow at the top of the menu or bottom of the menu and for whatever odd reason, they'll scroll the opposite direction. This only happens occasionally though, and quickly fixes itself when you hit the end of the list.
I'm glad someone else has had that problem too! I'm surprised it hasn't been fixed, but it's one of those ones that I could never find on Bugzilla because it is difficult to search for, so maybe no one ever registers it as a bug for the same reason? Maybe? Who knows!
Agreed. But my only concern is that sometimes updating Firefox can break extensions and has (at least once for me) caused Firefox not to start except in safe-mode.
Admitadely, the extensions seem better able to cope with new versions of FF (or is it the otherway around?!). But non-tech users might be a bit upset if their browser updates and then forces them to diagnose the problem..... they'll be likely to switch back to that "other" web browser!
I think we can all understand why MS would not be particularly enthusiastic about Open Document support, but since Massachusetts is MS's customer, I feel MS's response is unreasonable, and is in itself a good reason to switch.
I think a number of companies play games, such as the one where company A announces a product, company B then announces their support for company A, appears in the press hype, and then announces their non-support.
The public perception of A's product, is less than it would've been if B hadn't been involved at all.
It's not all that may years ago since I had to noodle around with my config.sys and autoexec.bat files just to make my CD-ROM and sound card work. And even then, I'd need to create a boot floppy so that everything would work properly with games.
Remember EMM386 (or something)?
Windows improved because it had to. Linux will likely only improve if it is forced to by being included as the bog standard OS on retail machines. I've never used it, but I guess Linspire does try to move Linux into a more consumer friendly form.
The VoIP-to-POTS gateways are exactly why there is money to be made in VoIP. You're right in that aspect, there's really no other reason (a free directory could be created no problem), and there's nothing to be done about it except marginalize those on POTS-only service. But the nature of the beast is that is a ways down the road.
Don't forget mobile (cellular!) phones. These will likely remain firmly in the land of POTS for a good few years yet even if land-lines did start to slide toward VoIP.
Yes, and that market is well covered by several companies. What's Yahoo's contribution?
Marketing. They're a brand recognised around the globe. But its true that they otherwise don't really add anything! But most people outside of any given industry feel most comfortable buying a product from a brand they recognise / trust.
"they would be trading a near 100% reliable voice communication network for a much less reliable one-off ISP gatewaying you to the Internet,"
That's a myth. There is nothing "one-off" about IP-based communications, and many ISPs are quite reliable.
I think the original point being made was simply that POTS is a very mature and very reliable technolgy that is also very low cost. As reliable as any given ISP maybe, they would be unlikely to provide any SLA guaranteed to anything like the level a traditional POTS supplier could, largely because with newer, unproven [or less proven!] technology, more issues do arrise.
I believe that since version 7, you don't need to do this since it does start up faster (I think it loads plugins on demand or something). It still works kind of sluggish though!
11 Buttons? Are you sure it's not just a really shitty keyboard?
If someone creates some chord input device type software, then it could indeed do away with the keyboard.
That said, calling it a "shitty keyboard" probably wouldn't catch on (and thats also the reason you don't work in Apple marketing). Think "iShit -- The New Way To Type"! No?! Okay.:-D
I think I'd have to recommend keeping how's very close to the actual implementation, because what can otherwise happen is that code will be modified but the comments remain as before which can be trés confusing in the future!
Not specifically regarding assembler, but you've just reminded me of the thing I absolutely hate the most which is people taking a chunk of existing code, comments an' all, tweaking the code to do something similar but different, but not updating the comments. Any typically the people (they ain't programmers!) who do this also use the existing function name but suffix it with a "2" or something -- I mean, why bother with a meaningful name? Someone might be able to understand the code!!
He lost a finger during the D-Day invasion as a captain in the Royal Canadian Artillery.
Was that ever mentioned at all in the Star Trek series? (not the D-Day invasion... but the absense of one of Scotty's finger?). If not, then they must've made an effort to keep that [open at least] hand out of camera shot!
Oh yeah that's a great idea, why bother moving forward when we can stay where we are and fucking stagnate? all because you can't be bothered to remove the horrible ugly IEx.x-only code in your website and replace it with something more sensible.
Sorry, did I upset you? O_o
My thinking was that there's no way MS will build a properly standard compliant browser (they've already stated this) so IE7 will just be _another_ non-standard browser along with the other ones that still need to be supported (IE6 and to a lesser degree IE5.x).
But I agree with what I believe to be your point that the best thing would be for IE7 to be standards compliant. It's just a shame that isn't going to happen isn't it?!
For the record, UA sniffing is a FUCKING TERRIBLE way to make webpages work in multiple browsers. Have a look at the UA string of an average browser today:
Appologies if I implied it was a good idea. I know it isn't! I don't to that. But I _do_ use CSS hacks, as AFAIK, do most other people who create "standards based" websites. My point was simply that although it's easy to state that UA sniffing is bad, we should also consider the possibility that many standards based websites might fail to render correctly on IE7 _if_ MS decide to either fix their CSS *or* fix their CSS parser. If they fix both we're fine!!
What with all the concern about the UA string above, and everyone saying using the UA string is dumb, I'd just like to add:
What about all of us "standards based" designers who have to exploit browser bugs for functionality? As far as I'm aware, pretty much _every_ designer who codes for standards (uses Firefox or something to build) and then tests and patches for other browsers (MSIE), we all use CSS work arounds.
**We don't know these will work!**
Will IE7 be fixed with respect to the CSS issues, but still respond to these CSS hacks, or vice-versa (CSS hacks don't work, but CSS is still buggy)?
It is entirely plausible that "standards based" websites will need some work so they render correctly in IE7! Of course, we can't tell until we start testing, which in reality, is true of all web browsers since they all contain a few bugs!
I half hope they've done nothing at all other than add tabs and RSS. That way, websites don't need any recoding (save for a UA sniffing tweak if you use it). Because fact is, we'll still have to test for IE6 (and maybe IE5.5?) compatibitity, so the last thing I need is another "special" browser with its own "special" interpretations of the standards!!
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't quite the same; unless I'm missing something, it still requires binaries built for a specific platform, so an i386 build isn't going to work on an Apple machine (at least not the current ones). Whereas a Java based email client will work on any platform that has a Java-VM installed.
Interesting project all the same though!
I've not used it, but I'm interested in looking at it because: you know with Mozilla Thunderbird, you can set it up so that your email and configuration are stored on a USB memory key, well I think it'd be far cooler if you could stick the entire email app. on the USB memory! That way, you could access your email on *any* computer regardless of OS.
:D
But, like I say, I haven't used it.... so this may not work. But the idea is cool!!
The only bug I've run into, and this has happened with every version since 1.0, is sometimes my bookmarks scroll backwards when there are too many to display on the menu. I'll mouse over the scroller arrow at the top of the menu or bottom of the menu and for whatever odd reason, they'll scroll the opposite direction. This only happens occasionally though, and quickly fixes itself when you hit the end of the list.
I'm glad someone else has had that problem too! I'm surprised it hasn't been fixed, but it's one of those ones that I could never find on Bugzilla because it is difficult to search for, so maybe no one ever registers it as a bug for the same reason? Maybe? Who knows!
Agreed. But my only concern is that sometimes updating Firefox can break extensions and has (at least once for me) caused Firefox not to start except in safe-mode.
Admitadely, the extensions seem better able to cope with new versions of FF (or is it the otherway around?!). But non-tech users might be a bit upset if their browser updates and then forces them to diagnose the problem..... they'll be likely to switch back to that "other" web browser!
I think we can all understand why MS would not be particularly enthusiastic about Open Document support, but since Massachusetts is MS's customer, I feel MS's response is unreasonable, and is in itself a good reason to switch.
I think a number of companies play games, such as the one where company A announces a product, company B then announces their support for company A, appears in the press hype, and then announces their non-support.
The public perception of A's product, is less than it would've been if B hadn't been involved at all.
Does SATA work perfectly with Windows?
It's not all that may years ago since I had to noodle around with my config.sys and autoexec.bat files just to make my CD-ROM and sound card work. And even then, I'd need to create a boot floppy so that everything would work properly with games.
Remember EMM386 (or something)?
Windows improved because it had to. Linux will likely only improve if it is forced to by being included as the bog standard OS on retail machines. I've never used it, but I guess Linspire does try to move Linux into a more consumer friendly form.
No marketing. This thing has synergy built in!
I guess that means that if you develop a product on top of Cell, you are completely free to use the word "synergy" within technical documents too?
The VoIP-to-POTS gateways are exactly why there is money to be made in VoIP. You're right in that aspect, there's really no other reason (a free directory could be created no problem), and there's nothing to be done about it except marginalize those on POTS-only service. But the nature of the beast is that is a ways down the road.
Don't forget mobile (cellular!) phones. These will likely remain firmly in the land of POTS for a good few years yet even if land-lines did start to slide toward VoIP.
Yes, and that market is well covered by several companies. What's Yahoo's contribution?
Marketing. They're a brand recognised around the globe. But its true that they otherwise don't really add anything! But most people outside of any given industry feel most comfortable buying a product from a brand they recognise / trust.
"they would be trading a near 100% reliable voice communication network for a much less reliable one-off ISP gatewaying you to the Internet,"
That's a myth. There is nothing "one-off" about IP-based communications, and many ISPs are quite reliable.
I think the original point being made was simply that POTS is a very mature and very reliable technolgy that is also very low cost. As reliable as any given ISP maybe, they would be unlikely to provide any SLA guaranteed to anything like the level a traditional POTS supplier could, largely because with newer, unproven [or less proven!] technology, more issues do arrise.
Can I download the source to Gizmo? I can't see any option to do so, which is kind of a shame!
For anyone else, there is more information about Gizmo here.
Can't find any mention here or in the article (no, of course I didn't read it all!), but how slow does it run?
I believe that since version 7, you don't need to do this since it does start up faster (I think it loads plugins on demand or something). It still works kind of sluggish though!
MirrorDot
11 Buttons? Are you sure it's not just a really shitty keyboard?
:-D
If someone creates some chord input device type software, then it could indeed do away with the keyboard.
That said, calling it a "shitty keyboard" probably wouldn't catch on (and thats also the reason you don't work in Apple marketing). Think "iShit -- The New Way To Type"! No?! Okay.
I think I'd have to recommend keeping how's very close to the actual implementation, because what can otherwise happen is that code will be modified but the comments remain as before which can be trés confusing in the future!
Or worse yet, lying.
Not specifically regarding assembler, but you've just reminded me of the thing I absolutely hate the most which is people taking a chunk of existing code, comments an' all, tweaking the code to do something similar but different, but not updating the comments. Any typically the people (they ain't programmers!) who do this also use the existing function name but suffix it with a "2" or something -- I mean, why bother with a meaningful name? Someone might be able to understand the code!!
Thats not what I heard.... nope. The word on the street is that "Utnubu" is for _Ut_ter Nubu's. Hence the name! ;)
Do you think its a coincidence that they still can't figure out whats wrong with it?
He lost a finger during the D-Day invasion as a captain in the Royal Canadian Artillery.
Was that ever mentioned at all in the Star Trek series? (not the D-Day invasion... but the absense of one of Scotty's finger?). If not, then they must've made an effort to keep that [open at least] hand out of camera shot!
[ahem] I thought you had replied to my other post </humble> Sorry!!! :-)
Oh yeah that's a great idea, why bother moving forward when we can stay where we are and fucking stagnate? all because you can't be bothered to remove the horrible ugly IEx.x-only code in your website and replace it with something more sensible.
Sorry, did I upset you? O_o
My thinking was that there's no way MS will build a properly standard compliant browser (they've already stated this) so IE7 will just be _another_ non-standard browser along with the other ones that still need to be supported (IE6 and to a lesser degree IE5.x).
But I agree with what I believe to be your point that the best thing would be for IE7 to be standards compliant. It's just a shame that isn't going to happen isn't it?!
For the record, UA sniffing is a FUCKING TERRIBLE way to make webpages work in multiple browsers. Have a look at the UA string of an average browser today:
Appologies if I implied it was a good idea. I know it isn't! I don't to that. But I _do_ use CSS hacks, as AFAIK, do most other people who create "standards based" websites. My point was simply that although it's easy to state that UA sniffing is bad, we should also consider the possibility that many standards based websites might fail to render correctly on IE7 _if_ MS decide to either fix their CSS *or* fix their CSS parser. If they fix both we're fine!!
What with all the concern about the UA string above, and everyone saying using the UA string is dumb, I'd just like to add:
What about all of us "standards based" designers who have to exploit browser bugs for functionality? As far as I'm aware, pretty much _every_ designer who codes for standards (uses Firefox or something to build) and then tests and patches for other browsers (MSIE), we all use CSS work arounds.
**We don't know these will work!**
Will IE7 be fixed with respect to the CSS issues, but still respond to these CSS hacks, or vice-versa (CSS hacks don't work, but CSS is still buggy)?
It is entirely plausible that "standards based" websites will need some work so they render correctly in IE7! Of course, we can't tell until we start testing, which in reality, is true of all web browsers since they all contain a few bugs!
I half hope they've done nothing at all other than add tabs and RSS. That way, websites don't need any recoding (save for a UA sniffing tweak if you use it). Because fact is, we'll still have to test for IE6 (and maybe IE5.5?) compatibitity, so the last thing I need is another "special" browser with its own "special" interpretations of the standards!!