It'll be nice in a few more months when everyone has naturally gotten over their all-too-human completely irrational emotional response to change. Mozilla shouldn't fall for any of this bullshit in the meantime.
In two years Firefox market share will be 20% and they'll be wondering where all their users went.
But the question is which users? If a UI changes makes things better or easier for 80% of the users but pisses off 20% of the users, then I'd say go for it.
If those 20% of users are the dedicated ones who tell their friends 'why are you still using IE? You should be using Firefox, it's way better' then pissing them off means you're fscked.
The back button history dropdown makes the UI look less cluttered and saves screen real-estate.
Where did this 'clutter' bullshit come from anyway? How many people have you heard say 'well, I'd love to use Firefox, but it's just too cluttered?' Sure on my netbook I don't have a lot of screen space, but most of the time I'm using Firefox on a screen that has plenty; there's precisely zero reason to want to run software that looks like it was designed for a mobile phone. The primary impact of 'decluttering' the interface is to force me to click the mouse six times to do something that used to require clicking ones. Do you really think I won't be pissed off by that? Do you think I'll randomly click around the UI or explore about:config in the hope that you might have hidden an option to give me back the old interface that worked and not post about how retarded the developers are for removing it in the first place?
Major FOSS developers seem to have gone insane in the last year, abandoning the markets they have in the hope of gaining markets they don't. It's retarded.
Yeah, that's the annoying thing about my new home server. UEFI BIOS to booted takes about four seconds, but power button to BIOS stopped pissing around takes more like twenty.
Eisenhower was a Republican, though perhaps Republicans were less cartoonish back then and acknowledged that taxes and "socialization" were practical for some things.
No, they just hadn't seen clear proof back then of what a disaster socialist policies always are in the long term.
thats a stupid idea. the sheer drag as it plows through the atmosphere repeatedly means itll last only a few orbits, if that.
I'm not entirely convinced. If you rotate it at the correct speed it could have zero velocity relative to Earth at the bottom of the swing and you could pick the orbit so that it picked up payloads in thin air (of course getting the payloads onto something that's rotating like that would be tricky).
The device doesn't need to find a printer driver. When it is first connected to the printer, the printer hands its driver over the connection to the device.
Yeah, lets run random code downloaded from a random device when we connect to it. That sounds like a great plan.
Even assuming that the printer includes a driver that the device can run.
Yes, this is absolutely retarded to complain about, and I say that as someone who complains about the TSA all the time.
No, you're being retarded. A pilot who doesn't intend to crash his plane can still carry a bag of bombs or weapons into the airport and hand it to a terrist who wants to destroy multiple planes.
This is not an impossible event; I've seen airline pilots on another forum talk about what they'd do if some terrists got hold of their family and threatened to kill them if they didn't carry weapons through security (generally the answer was 'sorry kids').
You say this as if the market wasn't essentially restricted to two vendors, with one clearly preferred by gamers.
But a game written for OpenGL or Direct3D in 2001 still runs on modern hardware. A game written to write directly to 2001 hardware does not.
Writing directly to hardware without a standardised API is retarded and pretty much guarantees that in ten years time the software won't work or performance will be lousy if it does.
But how is some badly written third party software a symptom of a broken security model?
Because Microsoft has encouraged such behaviour in the past ('sure, feel free to write any old crap in the program files tree'), and now continues to support it so as not to break those badly written applications.
And because UAC messages are absolutely useless in most cases. The most common one seems to be 'Access Hard Disk'. What does that mean? Is it trying to write a config file to its own directory or install a rootkit? How am I supposed to tell?
Because for every "big new hope" security feature that you described, except default sandboxing for all (it has been in IE for awhile), Microsoft brought into Windows starting with XP Service Pack 2, which came out in 2004.
I presume that's their point? They're beneficial, but can't fix Windows' poor design and decades of backwards compatible security holes.
it's exhaust is mostly harmless, if a bit smelly...
Dried horse-crap blowing around in the air is harmless?
Seriously? You really think that breathing in flakes of horse crap all then time you're out in the streets on a hot, dry day is not harmful?
And remember, it's not so long ago that the transport catastrophe facing the world was not running out of oil but that the number of horses was increasing so fast that in a few decades the streets would be so full of horse crap that we couldn't move anymore.
>But for the average car, no, this is a terrible idea, the radioactivity would be released every single winter as hundreds of hopeless morons wreck their cars in foul weather.
Protecting a few grams of Thorium against the forces imposed in a car crash isn't exactly rocket science.
MBAs know better. What they know is that marketing, public relations and public image/perception is far more critical to "success" than quality.
No, that's what they believe... and in the short term they're correct. In the long term, however, it's hard to keep selling people crap when they've had too many bad experiences with your earlier products.
Look at Sony, for example. My first two Sony camcorders lasted a decade each; in fact, I'm still using the DV camcorder I bought in 1996 because of the design flaw in the HD camera I bought in 2004 where if you remove the battery before the hardware has completely shut down it fries the logic board and costs more to fix than the camera is worth.
Suffice it to say, my next camcorder probably won't be Sony, no matter how good their marketing and PR may be.
GM engineers discovered a safety problem in a vehicle they were designing, and designed an extra part to fix it. But management decided to save $5 per vehicle and skip it.
[citation needed]
I remember some similar stories (the Pinto gas tank?) of poor engineering design in American cars that management wouldn't change until they had to, but I'm pretty sure the story as you tell it is an urban legend.
Start fining the hell out of companies for knowingly exposing their customers to risk (any risk, whether security or e-coli) and companies will clean up their acts.
No, they'll stop making stuff because unlimited liability for 'any risk' is simply insane. If they can't get insurance then there'd be no point being in business if you could be bankrupted at any time (e.g. Joe Loser sues Dell for selling a PC with Windows installed, which clearly exposes them to serious risks).
Take my webcam for example. Telnet to port 50000 and you get a root shell with no password required; took two minutes to discover that with nmap after I connected it to my home LAN.
Or you did, as the first firmware upgrade removed that feature.
Slashdot Mirror
It'll be nice in a few more months when everyone has naturally gotten over their all-too-human completely irrational emotional response to change. Mozilla shouldn't fall for any of this bullshit in the meantime.
In two years Firefox market share will be 20% and they'll be wondering where all their users went.
But the question is which users? If a UI changes makes things better or easier for 80% of the users but pisses off 20% of the users, then I'd say go for it.
If those 20% of users are the dedicated ones who tell their friends 'why are you still using IE? You should be using Firefox, it's way better' then pissing them off means you're fscked.
The back button history dropdown makes the UI look less cluttered and saves screen real-estate.
Where did this 'clutter' bullshit come from anyway? How many people have you heard say 'well, I'd love to use Firefox, but it's just too cluttered?' Sure on my netbook I don't have a lot of screen space, but most of the time I'm using Firefox on a screen that has plenty; there's precisely zero reason to want to run software that looks like it was designed for a mobile phone. The primary impact of 'decluttering' the interface is to force me to click the mouse six times to do something that used to require clicking ones. Do you really think I won't be pissed off by that? Do you think I'll randomly click around the UI or explore about:config in the hope that you might have hidden an option to give me back the old interface that worked and not post about how retarded the developers are for removing it in the first place?
Major FOSS developers seem to have gone insane in the last year, abandoning the markets they have in the hope of gaining markets they don't. It's retarded.
Yeah, that's the annoying thing about my new home server. UEFI BIOS to booted takes about four seconds, but power button to BIOS stopped pissing around takes more like twenty.
Eisenhower was a Republican, though perhaps Republicans were less cartoonish back then and acknowledged that taxes and "socialization" were practical for some things.
No, they just hadn't seen clear proof back then of what a disaster socialist policies always are in the long term.
In practice, the engineering is so far beyond us that it might as well be impossible.
Nearly impossible? OK, we might have to wait two hundred years then.
thats a stupid idea. the sheer drag as it plows through the atmosphere repeatedly means itll last only a few orbits, if that.
I'm not entirely convinced. If you rotate it at the correct speed it could have zero velocity relative to Earth at the bottom of the swing and you could pick the orbit so that it picked up payloads in thin air (of course getting the payloads onto something that's rotating like that would be tricky).
The device doesn't need to find a printer driver. When it is first connected to the printer, the printer hands its driver over the connection to the device.
Yeah, lets run random code downloaded from a random device when we connect to it. That sounds like a great plan.
Even assuming that the printer includes a driver that the device can run.
Yes, but not on the Internet .
Yeah, the pilot will put the gun to his head and hold himself hostage.
No, the pilot will hand the gun to a terrorist who's going to use it to... well, I don't know, some kind of terrorist crap.
And you know this how?
If the TSA had actually achieved anything at all, don't you think they'd be shouting across the media to publicise that fact?
Yes, this is absolutely retarded to complain about, and I say that as someone who complains about the TSA all the time.
No, you're being retarded. A pilot who doesn't intend to crash his plane can still carry a bag of bombs or weapons into the airport and hand it to a terrist who wants to destroy multiple planes.
This is not an impossible event; I've seen airline pilots on another forum talk about what they'd do if some terrists got hold of their family and threatened to kill them if they didn't carry weapons through security (generally the answer was 'sorry kids').
You say this as if the market wasn't essentially restricted to two vendors, with one clearly preferred by gamers.
But a game written for OpenGL or Direct3D in 2001 still runs on modern hardware. A game written to write directly to 2001 hardware does not.
Writing directly to hardware without a standardised API is retarded and pretty much guarantees that in ten years time the software won't work or performance will be lousy if it does.
But how is some badly written third party software a symptom of a broken security model?
Because Microsoft has encouraged such behaviour in the past ('sure, feel free to write any old crap in the program files tree'), and now continues to support it so as not to break those badly written applications.
And because UAC messages are absolutely useless in most cases. The most common one seems to be 'Access Hard Disk'. What does that mean? Is it trying to write a config file to its own directory or install a rootkit? How am I supposed to tell?
Broken how?
For a start:
"Application Helly Kitty Screen Saver wants to: Do crap you don't understand"
Do you press 'OK' or 'Cancel'? (Or whatever buttons Windows puts up in the UAC box, I haven't used it in months)
Because for every "big new hope" security feature that you described, except default sandboxing for all (it has been in IE for awhile), Microsoft brought into Windows starting with XP Service Pack 2, which came out in 2004.
I presume that's their point? They're beneficial, but can't fix Windows' poor design and decades of backwards compatible security holes.
it's exhaust is mostly harmless, if a bit smelly...
Dried horse-crap blowing around in the air is harmless?
Seriously? You really think that breathing in flakes of horse crap all then time you're out in the streets on a hot, dry day is not harmful?
And remember, it's not so long ago that the transport catastrophe facing the world was not running out of oil but that the number of horses was increasing so fast that in a few decades the streets would be so full of horse crap that we couldn't move anymore.
Uh, you seem to have jumped from gallons to grams on the second line, which would presumably put your results out by a factor of a couple of thousand.
>But for the average car, no, this is a terrible idea, the radioactivity would be released every single winter as hundreds of hopeless morons wreck their cars in foul weather.
Protecting a few grams of Thorium against the forces imposed in a car crash isn't exactly rocket science.
anything that would be a good alternative to gas will get squashed.
How's that 200mpg carburettor working out for you?
It is a bad thing that in 2011 we're still trying to use non-renewable resources to power transportation for everyone.
Why? The other alternative is to leave it lying in the ground where it's useless to anyone.
Saying 'but then our kids can use it' would be stupid because people will be making the same arguments a hundred years from now.
MBAs know better. What they know is that marketing, public relations and public image/perception is far more critical to "success" than quality.
No, that's what they believe... and in the short term they're correct. In the long term, however, it's hard to keep selling people crap when they've had too many bad experiences with your earlier products.
Look at Sony, for example. My first two Sony camcorders lasted a decade each; in fact, I'm still using the DV camcorder I bought in 1996 because of the design flaw in the HD camera I bought in 2004 where if you remove the battery before the hardware has completely shut down it fries the logic board and costs more to fix than the camera is worth.
Suffice it to say, my next camcorder probably won't be Sony, no matter how good their marketing and PR may be.
GM engineers discovered a safety problem in a vehicle they were designing, and designed an extra part to fix it. But management decided to save $5 per vehicle and skip it.
[citation needed]
I remember some similar stories (the Pinto gas tank?) of poor engineering design in American cars that management wouldn't change until they had to, but I'm pretty sure the story as you tell it is an urban legend.
Start fining the hell out of companies for knowingly exposing their customers to risk (any risk, whether security or e-coli) and companies will clean up their acts.
No, they'll stop making stuff because unlimited liability for 'any risk' is simply insane. If they can't get insurance then there'd be no point being in business if you could be bankrupted at any time (e.g. Joe Loser sues Dell for selling a PC with Windows installed, which clearly exposes them to serious risks).
Take my webcam for example. Telnet to port 50000 and you get a root shell with no password required; took two minutes to discover that with nmap after I connected it to my home LAN.
Or you did, as the first firmware upgrade removed that feature.
Oh boy, think of the hours of fun that hackers could have with that system.