I'm surprised you didn't bring up Zeno's Paradox in your little discussion about finding the center of an infinitely tall menu bar. If finding the center was even relevant, then it would take an infinite amount of time to find it (knowing where one edge is). There, you win your non-applicable argument.
Here's the truth: You've not spent more than five or ten minutes at a time on OS X, if that. You didn't know what expose is (and I hope you've looked it up now): "Haven't tried that (have to use the middle of a three-button, I suppose), but if Expose pops up close the current pointer, it would help," is what you wrote.
I think you just like to argue. You're comfortable with your current way of doing things, you've adapted to whatever system you're using, and that's fine. If some other system is developed with features compelling enough to get you to switch, you'll adapt to that, too, I imagine.
Fitt's Law has been supported (many times over) in usability studies. Such studies determine what is easiest for the greatest number of people, not for everyone. You might be on the toe of the curve because of how you've adapted to windowed menu bars. If you had to relearn, or were learning for the first time, you might not be on the toe.
As for the size of the monitor, this is easily overcome with hot keys to bring your cursor back to the focused window. Check the keyboard/mouse prefs in OS X system prefs next time you have the opportunity.
Seriously, I'm not claiming that OS X is better for everyone, nor even that Fitt's Law trumps your learned behavior. You've got a system that works for you and you're happy, and I wouldn't of trying to convert you to another system. If you're happy and productive that's all that matters, and screw the dicks that want you to change. So, ultimately (and beyond my own predilection for arguing for the sake of argument), you don't need to argue what works for you and why. It is enough to say that you're happy with it.
I think he was talking about setting an order-of-preference list automatically, rather than choosing manually. However, I think you can drag the order of access points in the Network control panel to determine this (on work PC right now so can't test), so you may still be right that the GP hasn't looked very hard. What you're thinking of is dragging the type of connection (wifi, ethernet, bluetooth, modem) in network system prefs, not which wireless network with which to connect. You can set which network it will attempt to connect with first, however. Then it will automatically look for your most recent networks. The options you can set for that if no recent networks are found are to join without a prompt, to get a prompt before joining, or to keep looking for recent networks. There are a number of other options you can set in network prefs as well.
However, perhaps you are referring to this (from a tip at Macworld:
Get back preferred networks When you open the Network preference pane, select AirPort from the Show pop-up menu, and then click on the Join pop-up menu, you should see two options: Automatic and Preferred Networks. The latter option, new in Tiger, lets you add, delete, or edit the names and passwords of networks you use often. If you don't see a Preferred Networks option, something went wrong when you upgraded to Tiger. The other thing is that, if you're 1) old school, and 2) knowledgeable, you can edit pretty much any preferences in the terminal (or in any text editor, really, but what's the point?). Most prefs are stored in XML format in a.plist file. There's also a property list editor that gets installed with Xcode. I don't have Xcode installed on this laptop, so I don't have details on that at the moment. Anyway, there's an excellent tutorial on pref files at MacFixIt.
All that being said, Quantum is nitpicking to make a point. His point is that closed proprietary systems are bad. The truth of the matter is that OS X is not as closed as he'd like to believe, it's just that some of the more grungy and potentially dangerous stuff is hidden from the non-power user. Anyone that wants to more deeply hack their OS X install can figure it out or do 5 or 10 minutes of research and learn how. What this is really about is Quantum's prejudice against proprietary software and his need to make up shortcomings to support his FSF supplied talking points. He has little, if any, knowledge of Mac OS X and is just trolling. Trolling for freeeeeeeeeedom. Trolling for Staaaaaaalman. For people like him, facts are irrelevant and religious ideology is everything.
Widow controls? What about the orphan controls? =)
Take a gander at this screenshot of NeXtstep to see where it's coming from. Very early 90s. Yes, the window controls are not Mac-like, but on the whole it's not all that different in feel from System 7 or OS 8. As I said, a very 90s feel to it.
It's due to the component architecture of the system and having the ability to mix modules. I'm curious as to how this affects the GNU userland. Or does it replace it?
It's not surprising that he doesn't know the difference between NZ and AUS, considering that he's Norwegian. Or Belgian. Same diff. (I did a whois on zakata.com.)
It's far stranger than that, and this is not well known. De Raadt suffers from the secret delusion that he is Bill Cosby's fictional son. He's tortured by this secret and it causes him to do, say, and write things that he later regrets. His one solace is that he gets to have heart to heart talks with his imaginary father, Bill Cosby.
Even if Ingo were too coked up to operate a keyboard reliably and had it all wrong, trying that never seems to work. Actually, it's widely reported that Molinar prefers the venom of the Colombian Spotted Toad, mixed with equal parts gin and just a drop of vermouth. Shaken, not stirred. This is known in some circles as a Kermitini. I don't know Ingo personally, but he doesn't seem to be the cocaine type.
Because anyone not happy with Torvald's stewardship is encouraged to fork.
Try forking an MS application.
A fork of Linux wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing at this point. If the Linux development team isn't focused enough on enhancements to improve the desktop and if the demand is really there, a fork will happen (and it might be quite successful). Linux itself is established enough now that it's not going to be irreversibly damaged. There might be repetition of effort, but remember, changes in either fork can be folded into the other if it is so desired (and practical to do so).
I'm not going to second guess Linus. He has enough of a track record as not just a development manager, but an Open Source manager. Making the tough decisions and having to explain them and all the little fights are part of the gig. Reading the LKML is often like watching someone make sausage. It's not pretty, but I still love to eat sausage.
Exactly. What is important about this change is not the mis-use of the word "free", but the shifting of the burden to the purchaser, rather than to the tax payer. That's good policy. A tax funded system is better than nothing and in some cases it's necessary to do it this way, but on the whole, it's better to shift the burden to the purchaser/user. Also good policy is to not shift the burden to the recycler, who you are trying to encourage, not penalize.
The one troubling thing is about how they plan on disposing of the waste. A smelter? He who smelter, dealter.
That's an interesting thought. I have synesthesia , so I'm very familiar with experiencing certain things in ways that are foreign to most other people. Have you ever considered doing UI design and testing for Apple? Finally, someone could tell them what the lickable buttons actually taste like!
I don't think I've ever seen anything beyond a guess at what that storage capacity might be, other than "really huge". But the danger isn't in hitting capacity, it's in exceeding the erase-write cycles limitations.
Still, this didn't stop some slashtards from casring about their eyes for some sharp object with which to amputate a limb. Anything to get a chip stuck in their skull.
However, you are right that action without seeming effort comes at its own cost. Consider the tale of this man, although his powers do not come from cybernetics or even the bite of a radioactive insect. He had the ultimate remote, but found that its use was spiritually problematic.
He can claim his name is GNU/ Stallman and it doesn't matter. He's associated with Open Source in the mind of the public to the extent that the public is even aware of him. Whether or not Open Source is a fork of Free Software is debatable. However, it is logically correct to call Free Software a subset of Open Source Software.
I'd add a couple of thoughts to your comment. In such a situation, you don't want to give it away for free because you also don't want to create or reinforce the attitude that it should be free. You want to encourage the habit of buying software as much as you want the use of your software to become prevalent. Even if you're just charging a couple of bucks, you're shaping economic behavior in a way to benefit your long term goals.
The second thought, continuing along this behavioral line of thought, is that you want to make both the software and the act of buying it desirable. If we're talking China and India, computers are still very much status objects conferring prestige. So, MS would need to find the right price point where their products would be within reach and also confer status. And of course they could market to businesses and individuals in ways that would reinforce this idea.
For individuals, MS could just steal Apple's marketing campaign: "I'm a PC." "And I'm a pirated software PC." (OK, joke example, but you get the idea.)
For businesses, they start a Microsoft License Partners program, confers some real or imagined benefits, but most importantly, lets businesses advertise themselves as Microsoft License Partners. MS can build the brand by sharing some of its warm glow. Businesses will want to join such a program either to set themselves apart from their competition or to close the gap with their competition.
In both China and in India, I'm given to understand that MS is already a prestige brand and the company is well thought of. If MS wants to dominate in these countries, it needs to emphasize these aspects.
This all reminds me of "Coach Plum", my old highschool's Alumni Association president. At every alumni weekend, reunion, etc., he's there nipping at people's heels like a little terrier. And he loves begging from the recent grads, the ones still in college or just graduating. Why? They have little or no money, right? He gladly accepts any amount, even $5 (and will write you a receipt!), because he wants to get the Alumni in the habit of giving from an early age. He wants to condition an alumnus to already be reaching for his wallet or check book when he sees Coach Plum. It's a pretty smart strategy and it smoothes the way for when he needs to ask for real money when an alumnus or alumna becomes financially successful.
Uh, I think your attempt just fell apart. No, it was never constructed to begin with. You've never heard of GNU/ Smack, I suppose? To continue with the drug analogy . . . . step away from the bong.
Ohreally_factor: The lights are growing dim Pope. I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate, and yet, I blame slashdot. Slashdot made me what I am.
Pope: That's bullshit. You're a white suburban nerd just like me.
How about using mod_dav? That could be interesting, having your own webDAV server in your pocket (or were you just glad to see me?). One use might be as a surreptitious method of distributing data. Think spy movie. Or passing out mp3s at the cafe.
How are you prevented from tinkering? Are you saying Nerve Gas and the #iphone-shell folks did it with magic? No, they tinkered with it. Where did the idea come from that all tinkering was supposed to be easy and not require time or skill? Go buy one and tinker to your heart's content.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised you didn't bring up Zeno's Paradox in your little discussion about finding the center of an infinitely tall menu bar. If finding the center was even relevant, then it would take an infinite amount of time to find it (knowing where one edge is). There, you win your non-applicable argument.
Here's the truth: You've not spent more than five or ten minutes at a time on OS X, if that. You didn't know what expose is (and I hope you've looked it up now): "Haven't tried that (have to use the middle of a three-button, I suppose), but if Expose pops up close the current pointer, it would help," is what you wrote.
I think you just like to argue. You're comfortable with your current way of doing things, you've adapted to whatever system you're using, and that's fine. If some other system is developed with features compelling enough to get you to switch, you'll adapt to that, too, I imagine.
Fitt's Law has been supported (many times over) in usability studies. Such studies determine what is easiest for the greatest number of people, not for everyone. You might be on the toe of the curve because of how you've adapted to windowed menu bars. If you had to relearn, or were learning for the first time, you might not be on the toe.
As for the size of the monitor, this is easily overcome with hot keys to bring your cursor back to the focused window. Check the keyboard/mouse prefs in OS X system prefs next time you have the opportunity.
Seriously, I'm not claiming that OS X is better for everyone, nor even that Fitt's Law trumps your learned behavior. You've got a system that works for you and you're happy, and I wouldn't of trying to convert you to another system. If you're happy and productive that's all that matters, and screw the dicks that want you to change. So, ultimately (and beyond my own predilection for arguing for the sake of argument), you don't need to argue what works for you and why. It is enough to say that you're happy with it.
However, perhaps you are referring to this (from a tip at Macworld: Get back preferred networks
When you open the Network preference pane, select AirPort from the Show pop-up menu, and then click on the Join pop-up menu, you should see two options: Automatic and Preferred Networks. The latter option, new in Tiger, lets you add, delete, or edit the names and passwords of networks you use often. If you don't see a Preferred Networks option, something went wrong when you upgraded to Tiger. The other thing is that, if you're 1) old school, and 2) knowledgeable, you can edit pretty much any preferences in the terminal (or in any text editor, really, but what's the point?). Most prefs are stored in XML format in a
All that being said, Quantum is nitpicking to make a point. His point is that closed proprietary systems are bad. The truth of the matter is that OS X is not as closed as he'd like to believe, it's just that some of the more grungy and potentially dangerous stuff is hidden from the non-power user. Anyone that wants to more deeply hack their OS X install can figure it out or do 5 or 10 minutes of research and learn how. What this is really about is Quantum's prejudice against proprietary software and his need to make up shortcomings to support his FSF supplied talking points. He has little, if any, knowledge of Mac OS X and is just trolling. Trolling for freeeeeeeeeedom. Trolling for Staaaaaaalman. For people like him, facts are irrelevant and religious ideology is everything.
I'm a fucking idiot. That screenshot is to a Windows skin. Here's a screenshot from WP, and even better, here's GUIdebook so you can compare GUIs to your heart's content.
Widow controls? What about the orphan controls? =)
Take a gander at this screenshot of NeXtstep to see where it's coming from. Very early 90s. Yes, the window controls are not Mac-like, but on the whole it's not all that different in feel from System 7 or OS 8. As I said, a very 90s feel to it.
It's due to the component architecture of the system and having the ability to mix modules. I'm curious as to how this affects the GNU userland. Or does it replace it?
I think that's against some unwritten rule. I mean, what would happen if there was a riot and a hockey game broke out?
It's not surprising that he doesn't know the difference between NZ and AUS, considering that he's Norwegian. Or Belgian. Same diff. (I did a whois on zakata.com.)
Sounds more like a Canadian riot, doesn't it?
It's far stranger than that, and this is not well known. De Raadt suffers from the secret delusion that he is Bill Cosby's fictional son. He's tortured by this secret and it causes him to do, say, and write things that he later regrets. His one solace is that he gets to have heart to heart talks with his imaginary father, Bill Cosby.
Now do you understand, Rudeeee?
Because anyone not happy with Torvald's stewardship is encouraged to fork.
Try forking an MS application.
A fork of Linux wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing at this point. If the Linux development team isn't focused enough on enhancements to improve the desktop and if the demand is really there, a fork will happen (and it might be quite successful). Linux itself is established enough now that it's not going to be irreversibly damaged. There might be repetition of effort, but remember, changes in either fork can be folded into the other if it is so desired (and practical to do so).
I'm not going to second guess Linus. He has enough of a track record as not just a development manager, but an Open Source manager. Making the tough decisions and having to explain them and all the little fights are part of the gig. Reading the LKML is often like watching someone make sausage. It's not pretty, but I still love to eat sausage.
Exactly. What is important about this change is not the mis-use of the word "free", but the shifting of the burden to the purchaser, rather than to the tax payer. That's good policy. A tax funded system is better than nothing and in some cases it's necessary to do it this way, but on the whole, it's better to shift the burden to the purchaser/user. Also good policy is to not shift the burden to the recycler, who you are trying to encourage, not penalize.
The one troubling thing is about how they plan on disposing of the waste. A smelter? He who smelter, dealter.
I don't think I've ever seen anything beyond a guess at what that storage capacity might be, other than "really huge". But the danger isn't in hitting capacity, it's in exceeding the erase-write cycles limitations.
Still, this didn't stop some slashtards from casring about their eyes for some sharp object with which to amputate a limb. Anything to get a chip stuck in their skull.
However, you are right that action without seeming effort comes at its own cost. Consider the tale of this man, although his powers do not come from cybernetics or even the bite of a radioactive insect. He had the ultimate remote, but found that its use was spiritually problematic.
He can claim his name is GNU/ Stallman and it doesn't matter. He's associated with Open Source in the mind of the public to the extent that the public is even aware of him. Whether or not Open Source is a fork of Free Software is debatable. However, it is logically correct to call Free Software a subset of Open Source Software.
I'd add a couple of thoughts to your comment. In such a situation, you don't want to give it away for free because you also don't want to create or reinforce the attitude that it should be free. You want to encourage the habit of buying software as much as you want the use of your software to become prevalent. Even if you're just charging a couple of bucks, you're shaping economic behavior in a way to benefit your long term goals.
The second thought, continuing along this behavioral line of thought, is that you want to make both the software and the act of buying it desirable. If we're talking China and India, computers are still very much status objects conferring prestige. So, MS would need to find the right price point where their products would be within reach and also confer status. And of course they could market to businesses and individuals in ways that would reinforce this idea.
For individuals, MS could just steal Apple's marketing campaign: "I'm a PC." "And I'm a pirated software PC." (OK, joke example, but you get the idea.)
For businesses, they start a Microsoft License Partners program, confers some real or imagined benefits, but most importantly, lets businesses advertise themselves as Microsoft License Partners. MS can build the brand by sharing some of its warm glow. Businesses will want to join such a program either to set themselves apart from their competition or to close the gap with their competition.
In both China and in India, I'm given to understand that MS is already a prestige brand and the company is well thought of. If MS wants to dominate in these countries, it needs to emphasize these aspects.
This all reminds me of "Coach Plum", my old highschool's Alumni Association president. At every alumni weekend, reunion, etc., he's there nipping at people's heels like a little terrier. And he loves begging from the recent grads, the ones still in college or just graduating. Why? They have little or no money, right? He gladly accepts any amount, even $5 (and will write you a receipt!), because he wants to get the Alumni in the habit of giving from an early age. He wants to condition an alumnus to already be reaching for his wallet or check book when he sees Coach Plum. It's a pretty smart strategy and it smoothes the way for when he needs to ask for real money when an alumnus or alumna becomes financially successful.
Uh, I think your attempt just fell apart. No, it was never constructed to begin with. You've never heard of GNU/ Smack, I suppose? To continue with the drug analogy . . . . step away from the bong.
It works either way. And if you're auditing it twice, that might be more secure.
I thought "Greek Fire" was what happened after you had anal sex with someone who'd been eating jalapeño peppers.
Please don't talk like that within hearing range of my Furby.
Ohreally_factor: The lights are growing dim Pope. I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate, and yet, I blame slashdot. Slashdot made me what I am.
Pope: That's bullshit. You're a white suburban nerd just like me.
Ohreally_factor: Yeah, but it still hurts. [Dies]
Oh, great. Now you've got me imagining Steve Jobs, naked and petrified.
How about using mod_dav? That could be interesting, having your own webDAV server in your pocket (or were you just glad to see me?). One use might be as a surreptitious method of distributing data. Think spy movie. Or passing out mp3s at the cafe.
How are you prevented from tinkering? Are you saying Nerve Gas and the #iphone-shell folks did it with magic? No, they tinkered with it. Where did the idea come from that all tinkering was supposed to be easy and not require time or skill? Go buy one and tinker to your heart's content.