I wish the Firefox and KHTML engines were swappable somehow. I'd love to run Firefox with WebKit in the non-chrome areas on Windows/Linux (usually), and Safari with Gecko in its HTML areas on Mac (at times). I know the very good technical reasons why this doesn't happen, I just wish it happened anyway.:)
Neither Gecko nor WebKit/KHTML are bad engines, mind you.:) It's the comparison between them is interesting, since it demonstrates either an ambiguity in the standard (most likely) or one or both not following the standard (rare, but it happens).
I, personally, far prefer Safari to Firefox on the Mac. It isn't a matter of "barely an excuse," it's that from my perspective everything that I care about in Safari is superior: launch speed, interface design, text rendering, scroll speed, web inspector. The extensibility isn't there, but I can live without that.
Safari on Windows is definitely not there yet. My main problem with Safari on Windows is the same problem I have with Firefox on the Mac: It feels foreign. There's other problems, too: the spelling checker doesn't seem to work yet, and clicking the already active window in the task bar doesn't hide it. For now, I'll definitely stick with Firefox on Windows. Hopefully one day Apple will get there. (And hopefully one day Mozilla will make Firefox really feel like a Mac application on the Mac.)
I'd love to have Safari available on Ubuntu, but I guess I'd best not hold my breath.
Of course your mileage will vary, but Safari does have some very nice features.
Having watched the keynote myself, I thought it was obvious he was just talking about an increase while making as little change to the graph as possible.
Personally, I haven't seen a popup or pop-under ad with Safari in a long time. I'm not sure why banner ads should be torture to anyone, but ymmv.
Nowhere in the link you provided does it say Jobs expects Safari to be dominant. That is, after all, the point you were addressing when you posted it here.
As for the rest, Safari works very well on Mac - much better than Firefox in some areas, slightly worse in others. I expect it to improve on Windows as well.
Does anyone expect the submitter think Apple's plan is for Safari to become the dominant browser on Windows? That's not what this is about. With Safari on Windows, web developers using Windows machines will be able to see how most Macs and all iPhones will browse their site.
That's kind of my point. There are two possibilities here:
1. Apple knows ZFS is not ready, and Apple wasn't planning on shipping it as the default file system. Sun's CEO announced otherwise, and Apple corrected him.
2. Apple knows ZFS is not ready, but planned on shipping it as the default system anyway, but now isn't going to solely because they don't like Sun's CEO early announcement.
You have to believe in black helicopters to believe the second. It's freaking insane.
Schwartz did not say "default." He said "the." Obviously, there is support for more than one file system, so we can already say he spoke incorrectly. Why assume he meant "the default" as opposed to "the most advanced?"
I agree it's doubtful and would have an impact on performance. In fact, I believe I saw the source for this statement, and interpreted it the same way (with some skepticism) at first. The skepticism was eventually rewarded, and I figured out it wasn't meant to be read this way...
However, it seems that if 64 bit operations were implemented as calls to a global table, the cost wouldn't be unreasonably high. It would certainly be slower than code actually tuned for 32-bit CPUs, and it would also have some impact on the performance on 64-bit code running on 64-bit CPUs.
God does not help those who help themselves. That's just a saying that tradition built, not something from God. God helps anyone willing to accept and trust in his help... which means the exact opposite of this old maxim.
Most people who disbelieve a God do so so more out of a misunderstanding of who he is. But that's not exactly a great revelation - most people who follow him don't know who he is either.:)
Yes, and they too are wrong, because there is no evidence.
Why can you not accept that there is a difference between proof and belief? If you touch fire, you've proven to yourself that fire hurts, yet you've proved nothing of the kind to me. I might refuse to believe you, and might even go so far as to fake fun of you... but you still know fire hurts, don't you?
I think the reality is that if you are doing something you don't want your spouse to catch you at, it will affect your relationship in other ways. You'll be too tired when she wants attention, or you'll be angry when she asks an innocent question that you perceive as loaded.
Eventually, she's going to find out anyway. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but one day.
Better not to keep secrets.
But for general privacy concerns, I think throw-away email addresses are good advice.
No offense meant, but I think a monogamous couple with good communication has a leg up on that.:) However, I'll grant you that most couples have lousy communication.
I've had no problems finding free software to do most everything I want. In fact, the only commercial applications I have on my PowerBook are GraphicConverter (which came bundled with it), Microsoft Office 2004 (which I wanted for work) and Transmit (which I really don't need, since it duplicates built-in functionality, but I liked the way it worked).
Almost anything on the Mac can be solved with freeware.
Can you explain what in particular he mentioned that you can't do with svn? I've used it a few times, including a few merges, and haven't really run into anything he described that I can't do. I'm interested in knowing more about its limitations before I run into them. A link would do, if you'd like. Thanks.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I enjoyed it, too. It wasn't an awesome movie by any stretch, but it got the job done: it entertained me.
Thanks for the link. I'll definitely check that out.
I wish the Firefox and KHTML engines were swappable somehow. I'd love to run Firefox with WebKit in the non-chrome areas on Windows/Linux (usually), and Safari with Gecko in its HTML areas on Mac (at times). I know the very good technical reasons why this doesn't happen, I just wish it happened anyway. :)
:) It's the comparison between them is interesting, since it demonstrates either an ambiguity in the standard (most likely) or one or both not following the standard (rare, but it happens).
Neither Gecko nor WebKit/KHTML are bad engines, mind you.
I, personally, far prefer Safari to Firefox on the Mac. It isn't a matter of "barely an excuse," it's that from my perspective everything that I care about in Safari is superior: launch speed, interface design, text rendering, scroll speed, web inspector. The extensibility isn't there, but I can live without that.
Safari on Windows is definitely not there yet. My main problem with Safari on Windows is the same problem I have with Firefox on the Mac: It feels foreign. There's other problems, too: the spelling checker doesn't seem to work yet, and clicking the already active window in the task bar doesn't hide it. For now, I'll definitely stick with Firefox on Windows. Hopefully one day Apple will get there. (And hopefully one day Mozilla will make Firefox really feel like a Mac application on the Mac.)
I'd love to have Safari available on Ubuntu, but I guess I'd best not hold my breath.
Of course your mileage will vary, but Safari does have some very nice features.
Having watched the keynote myself, I thought it was obvious he was just talking about an increase while making as little change to the graph as possible.
Personally, I haven't seen a popup or pop-under ad with Safari in a long time. I'm not sure why banner ads should be torture to anyone, but ymmv.
Nowhere in the link you provided does it say Jobs expects Safari to be dominant. That is, after all, the point you were addressing when you posted it here.
As for the rest, Safari works very well on Mac - much better than Firefox in some areas, slightly worse in others. I expect it to improve on Windows as well.
Does anyone expect the submitter think Apple's plan is for Safari to become the dominant browser on Windows? That's not what this is about. With Safari on Windows, web developers using Windows machines will be able to see how most Macs and all iPhones will browse their site.
That's kind of my point. There are two possibilities here: 1. Apple knows ZFS is not ready, and Apple wasn't planning on shipping it as the default file system. Sun's CEO announced otherwise, and Apple corrected him. 2. Apple knows ZFS is not ready, but planned on shipping it as the default system anyway, but now isn't going to solely because they don't like Sun's CEO early announcement. You have to believe in black helicopters to believe the second. It's freaking insane.
Schwartz did not say "default." He said "the." Obviously, there is support for more than one file system, so we can already say he spoke incorrectly. Why assume he meant "the default" as opposed to "the most advanced?"
This is what I'm expecting as well. The idea of solving running 64 bit code on 32 bit CPUs instead of just requiring a 32 bit binary is almost insane.
Yes, I have doubts. Not long term doubts, though, just short term doubts.
Read only NTFS support is in the Tiger build, yet I haven't read any speculation that it will become the default file system in Leopard.
For the sake of argument, how would it have sounded different if Apple just had never planned on shipping ZFS as the defualt file system?
I agree it's doubtful and would have an impact on performance. In fact, I believe I saw the source for this statement, and interpreted it the same way (with some skepticism) at first. The skepticism was eventually rewarded, and I figured out it wasn't meant to be read this way...
However, it seems that if 64 bit operations were implemented as calls to a global table, the cost wouldn't be unreasonably high. It would certainly be slower than code actually tuned for 32-bit CPUs, and it would also have some impact on the performance on 64-bit code running on 64-bit CPUs.
Again, unlikely. Just barely possible, though.
God does not help those who help themselves. That's just a saying that tradition built, not something from God. God helps anyone willing to accept and trust in his help... which means the exact opposite of this old maxim.
:)
Most people who disbelieve a God do so so more out of a misunderstanding of who he is. But that's not exactly a great revelation - most people who follow him don't know who he is either.
Sure you can. Ask him for proof and be prepared to accept an answer, and you'll get it.
I never got a chance to try SC4, but at least I thought it looked good, yeah.
Am I completely alone in loving the additions in SimCity 3?
I think the reality is that if you are doing something you don't want your spouse to catch you at, it will affect your relationship in other ways. You'll be too tired when she wants attention, or you'll be angry when she asks an innocent question that you perceive as loaded.
Eventually, she's going to find out anyway. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but one day.
Better not to keep secrets.
But for general privacy concerns, I think throw-away email addresses are good advice.
No offense meant, but I think a monogamous couple with good communication has a leg up on that. :) However, I'll grant you that most couples have lousy communication.
I've had no problems finding free software to do most everything I want. In fact, the only commercial applications I have on my PowerBook are GraphicConverter (which came bundled with it), Microsoft Office 2004 (which I wanted for work) and Transmit (which I really don't need, since it duplicates built-in functionality, but I liked the way it worked).
Almost anything on the Mac can be solved with freeware.
I found the information I needed.
Can you explain what in particular he mentioned that you can't do with svn? I've used it a few times, including a few merges, and haven't really run into anything he described that I can't do. I'm interested in knowing more about its limitations before I run into them. A link would do, if you'd like. Thanks. :)
TV tells me Megatron is there, and TV never lies.