Your defence assumes emulation. If the similarity is due to it being a good design, then it's still supports Samsung (e.g. it's this way because it works, not because it's Apple).
TFA addresses what you raise, only the popular products will be funded by things like kickstarter. The slick, good looking and easy to digest.
Are we still considering Minecraft here? It's neither slick, good looking, easy to digest, nor did it start out popular. Quite to the contrary, Minecraft is an example of something that would have been very unlikely to get funding any other way. The copyright clearing houses that have dominated the landscape so far seldom fund or promote things that aren't slick, good looking and easy to digest, so what exactly is your point?
Blenders interface is most certainly contextual, it isn't guessing, but it is only presenting the relevant functions depending on what you pick (that's the icon bar above the tools) and what you do. You didn't mention learning before though, Blender doesn't do that. OTOH does that mean that a non-learning contextual ribbon would be clear to implement?
Re:What he took away is more precious than given
on
Steve Jobs Dead At 56
·
· Score: 1
People can stay within the walls even if there's a gate. You can talk about what people like once there's a gate and they choose to stay, right now it's indistinguishable from rationalisation.
It generally doesn't use icons for its buttons (but that's just cosmetics), but otherwise it used to have a horizontal bar (the new version uses vertical bars) with button panels that appear and disappear based on what you are doing. I'm not entirely sure when the interface became what it is, but it certainly was like that when Blender was released as FLOSS in 2002. I haven't used the ribbon so I don't know if it is actually similar, here's a video that shows it well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ow9ftNlnbo
But a sizeable portion of users absolutely do care about a gorgeous screen that has an aspect ratio well suited for movie watching, particularly if the can snap it onto a dock that let's you plop it down on your lap or desk and gives 16 hour battery life. Users do care about specs, if not spelled out ones, least Apple would have no reason to beef up with the iPad 2.
I'd like a talented black hat have a go at that "bug-free" code. It will function correctly for the very narrow operational window it was made for, but that is altogether different from the requirements of a typical web server.
Even assuming adding the UI is hard, how much easier can it be to maintain two completely different versions of the software?
Much easier precisely due to them being too different versions. They don't add features or improvements to 3.6, basically as long as the security fixes don't break anything they are done. Compare to updating a big chunk of code to keep up with everything else changing.
Office and Windows has a thing called user momentum (and even then, they are slowly losing it). They are the standard.
The point stands. People would pay them to keep the interface (what are you offering Mozilla?), that is the point you have to address.
As I said, people don't expect big companies to listen to them, Firefox has at least pretended like they do. For example, just look at all the news postings there were explaining why rapid release was good and they still love enterprise users.
Many other big companies blog. But I digress, if you understand what is going on your uninformed expectations are not arguments.
A similar simple blog post by mozilla or their figurehead would at least change the response most people are getting from various sources (as well as the bug system) from "do the task (which we are assuming is hard, and is further complicated by said new programmer having to learn how the project is laid out, who is the big boss, etc.) yourself" to "we are going to ignore you now."
There have been posts discussing the improvements to the interface. Specifically going into not forking it permanently would be somewhat redundant. The official response is pretty clear: "We improved the interface", that they wouldn't expend effort to keep a worse interface around goes without saying.
I apologize if you or the developers feel insulted, but more than a third of Firefox users are using 3.6. and the number one reason I have heard is the new UI.
The number one reason I've heard is IT departments unwilling to deal with change, same as IE6. For obvious reasons Mozilla is trying to do anything to not make another IE6 happen.
This is obviously a major issue, rather than a minor annoyance or pet issue.
It is a major issue... To a minority of users that isn't even that vocal (sorry, haven't heard much of you, and I follow the relevant news), there is no momentum at all to restore the "IE with tabs" interface, just a few dissatisfied users here and there. Things with real momentum generally attract at least some sympathetic developers for a while, there is talk about forking, someone sets up a repo, there is some preliminary work, etc., often it fizzles out at that, but there isn't even that much for this. Memory usage and speed are far bigger issues in just about any way you look at it, and that's what a lot of work has gone into since 3.x.
Instead of repeatedly hurling insults, people either need to walk away (which mozilla doesn't seem to want) or they need to try to work together given what everybody has (and mozilla has all the developers, from the end user's point of view).
You are contradicting yourself. Either Mozilla is ignoring you, or they are actively engaging you. Closing spam tickets is not an insult, offering the obvious option that you don't have with proprietary software isn't an insult. Mozilla has walked away a long time ago, you are just trying to drag them back and act offended when they don't. It's the users who aren't willing to do more then beat the dead horse that need to move on, not Mozilla.
Is this really what the open source mentality has turned into? You don't like it, add it back?
This is what the "open source mentality" (actually different people do things differently, but there as some trends) always has been. You have the source, you have the ability to change what you dislike, but you have no expectation that developers spend their time on your goals, not on theirs.
Even though open source claims that they want users of all levels to use their software?
Microsoft successfully sells to users at all levels, yet office still only has one interface. Despite a bigger user base, a user interface that is much harder to relearn and a huge financial incentive they didn't maintain dual interfaces.
No explanation of how hard it is or anything, just to do it yourself. I have no idea how hard it is, the GP said he doesn't know how hard it is.
GP said he'd bet it's easy, you are assuming easy as the default position. Stop. Assume hard, always assume that it's hard unless you know otherwise. If you don't you will just alienate developers with your demands. I'd prefer them to work on their respective software instead of explaining to people, without the first notion of how complex software development on a Firefox sized project is, how hard their pet task would be to implement, or how much complexity (read bugs) it would add, or how much manpower it would take to maintain (this one's probably the biggest stumbling block in implementing multiple interfaces).
So yeah, GP claims it's easy, so they should go ahead an do it, since it's easy and all. You need to stop making assumptions and demands, no they can't send down a developer to take care of your pet issue or explain what the difficulties would be.
If it is hard, they should tell us; if it is easy, they should tell us; if they don't want to do it and instead focus elsewhere, they should tell us.
They have spoken through their actions, focus is elsewhere by the virtue of focus being elsewhere. No, you clearly want some different, yet very specific answer.
But if the answer is "do it yourself," an answer that requires skills that most users don't have, then users will feel, not ignored but the much worse, insulted. And people can take only so many insults.
That is, and always will be, the answer to entitled users making repeated demands. If you feel insulted by the very option of being able to do something about it (skills can be acquired or hired) then I guess you should stick with proprietary software that ignores you and doesn't give any options to fix it at all... Yes, developers are people, stop insulting them to get a response.
Oh yes, neither Bethesda Game Studios nor Bethesda Softworks (there is no such thing as Bethesda anymore, this distinction is as important, or not, as the Zenimax one) have anything to do with the Elder Scrolls, nor are the forums ever to be used to discuss any news related to Elder Scrolls. An legal, paper thin wall separating entities that do their best to appear as a coherent whole in public as far as Elder Scrolls go, and indeed, wouldn't be able to utile the Elder Scrolls mark without each other, is no reason to point fingers at the entity technically holding the mark, especially when that entity makes no other use of it than bullying someone using a generic part of it.
When was the last time you had to restart Firefox when using an extension written against the API they worked out during the time you claim they did nothing? You didn't, Firefox just happens to have a metric fuck load of legacy extensions.
Websites, like Banks for example, won't run if you use a browser version they haven't tested -- in Firefox's case that's 3 versions ago.
Banks with calcified web developers anyway, my bank didn't lock me out even back when Firefox was still Phoenix and had no market share to speak of. They have worked with any reasonably recent browser I've thrown at them.
But major version bumps are supposed to be for major architectural changes (depending on who you ask anyway...). Major user visible changes don't qualify. And that's one of the main reasons for the versioning change, internal improvements don't have to be held back indefinitely because everyone expects major versions in a traditional versioning system to stick around. So Mozilla either has to support a large number of short-lived major versions, or lay out a clear policy on what to expect. They picked the later, so at least no one paying attention can't complain that they standardised on Firefox 6 and now there is no support just because someone did major memory handling improvements and it might break some idiosyncrasy they rely on. It leaves the door open for long term support releases from either Mozilla or other interested parties, without the expectation that any major release will be supported for X years.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you assert it? Well, since it's "assertions are facts" day I'll assert that all tyrannies stem from axiomatic ideologies, tyrant.
Hey, yet another person who doesn't understand that one can compare relative impact without comparing the absolutes!
Anonymity and privacy might be related, but they are certainly not the same thing.
Yes, Palm was a joke, a hilarious one. That's why so many people bought them, for a good laugh.
Your defence assumes emulation. If the similarity is due to it being a good design, then it's still supports Samsung (e.g. it's this way because it works, not because it's Apple).
Are we still considering Minecraft here? It's neither slick, good looking, easy to digest, nor did it start out popular. Quite to the contrary, Minecraft is an example of something that would have been very unlikely to get funding any other way. The copyright clearing houses that have dominated the landscape so far seldom fund or promote things that aren't slick, good looking and easy to digest, so what exactly is your point?
Blenders interface is most certainly contextual, it isn't guessing, but it is only presenting the relevant functions depending on what you pick (that's the icon bar above the tools) and what you do. You didn't mention learning before though, Blender doesn't do that. OTOH does that mean that a non-learning contextual ribbon would be clear to implement?
People can stay within the walls even if there's a gate. You can talk about what people like once there's a gate and they choose to stay, right now it's indistinguishable from rationalisation.
It generally doesn't use icons for its buttons (but that's just cosmetics), but otherwise it used to have a horizontal bar (the new version uses vertical bars) with button panels that appear and disappear based on what you are doing. I'm not entirely sure when the interface became what it is, but it certainly was like that when Blender was released as FLOSS in 2002. I haven't used the ribbon so I don't know if it is actually similar, here's a video that shows it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ow9ftNlnbo
Blender might or might not be applicable.
But a sizeable portion of users absolutely do care about a gorgeous screen that has an aspect ratio well suited for movie watching, particularly if the can snap it onto a dock that let's you plop it down on your lap or desk and gives 16 hour battery life. Users do care about specs, if not spelled out ones, least Apple would have no reason to beef up with the iPad 2.
I'd like a talented black hat have a go at that "bug-free" code. It will function correctly for the very narrow operational window it was made for, but that is altogether different from the requirements of a typical web server.
Much easier precisely due to them being too different versions. They don't add features or improvements to 3.6, basically as long as the security fixes don't break anything they are done. Compare to updating a big chunk of code to keep up with everything else changing.
The point stands. People would pay them to keep the interface (what are you offering Mozilla?), that is the point you have to address.
Many other big companies blog. But I digress, if you understand what is going on your uninformed expectations are not arguments.
There have been posts discussing the improvements to the interface. Specifically going into not forking it permanently would be somewhat redundant. The official response is pretty clear: "We improved the interface", that they wouldn't expend effort to keep a worse interface around goes without saying.
The number one reason I've heard is IT departments unwilling to deal with change, same as IE6. For obvious reasons Mozilla is trying to do anything to not make another IE6 happen.
It is a major issue... To a minority of users that isn't even that vocal (sorry, haven't heard much of you, and I follow the relevant news), there is no momentum at all to restore the "IE with tabs" interface, just a few dissatisfied users here and there. Things with real momentum generally attract at least some sympathetic developers for a while, there is talk about forking, someone sets up a repo, there is some preliminary work, etc., often it fizzles out at that, but there isn't even that much for this. Memory usage and speed are far bigger issues in just about any way you look at it, and that's what a lot of work has gone into since 3.x.
You are contradicting yourself. Either Mozilla is ignoring you, or they are actively engaging you. Closing spam tickets is not an insult, offering the obvious option that you don't have with proprietary software isn't an insult. Mozilla has walked away a long time ago, you are just trying to drag them back and act offended when they don't. It's the users who aren't willing to do more then beat the dead horse that need to move on, not Mozilla.
This is what the "open source mentality" (actually different people do things differently, but there as some trends) always has been. You have the source, you have the ability to change what you dislike, but you have no expectation that developers spend their time on your goals, not on theirs.
Microsoft successfully sells to users at all levels, yet office still only has one interface. Despite a bigger user base, a user interface that is much harder to relearn and a huge financial incentive they didn't maintain dual interfaces.
GP said he'd bet it's easy, you are assuming easy as the default position. Stop. Assume hard, always assume that it's hard unless you know otherwise. If you don't you will just alienate developers with your demands. I'd prefer them to work on their respective software instead of explaining to people, without the first notion of how complex software development on a Firefox sized project is, how hard their pet task would be to implement, or how much complexity (read bugs) it would add, or how much manpower it would take to maintain (this one's probably the biggest stumbling block in implementing multiple interfaces).
So yeah, GP claims it's easy, so they should go ahead an do it, since it's easy and all. You need to stop making assumptions and demands, no they can't send down a developer to take care of your pet issue or explain what the difficulties would be.
They have spoken through their actions, focus is elsewhere by the virtue of focus being elsewhere. No, you clearly want some different, yet very specific answer.
That is, and always will be, the answer to entitled users making repeated demands. If you feel insulted by the very option of being able to do something about it (skills can be acquired or hired) then I guess you should stick with proprietary software that ignores you and doesn't give any options to fix it at all... Yes, developers are people, stop insulting them to get a response.
AOL Instant Messenger (aka AIM): 1997. GAIM (aka GTK+ AOL Instant Messenger): 1999. But a nice try.
Oh yes, neither Bethesda Game Studios nor Bethesda Softworks (there is no such thing as Bethesda anymore, this distinction is as important, or not, as the Zenimax one) have anything to do with the Elder Scrolls, nor are the forums ever to be used to discuss any news related to Elder Scrolls. An legal, paper thin wall separating entities that do their best to appear as a coherent whole in public as far as Elder Scrolls go, and indeed, wouldn't be able to utile the Elder Scrolls mark without each other, is no reason to point fingers at the entity technically holding the mark, especially when that entity makes no other use of it than bullying someone using a generic part of it.
When was the last time you had to restart Firefox when using an extension written against the API they worked out during the time you claim they did nothing? You didn't, Firefox just happens to have a metric fuck load of legacy extensions.
If only people would apply the same standards to Firefox developers...
I guess you could just go ahead and add it back, since it doesn't take any time at all?
Banks with calcified web developers anyway, my bank didn't lock me out even back when Firefox was still Phoenix and had no market share to speak of. They have worked with any reasonably recent browser I've thrown at them.
But major version bumps are supposed to be for major architectural changes (depending on who you ask anyway...). Major user visible changes don't qualify. And that's one of the main reasons for the versioning change, internal improvements don't have to be held back indefinitely because everyone expects major versions in a traditional versioning system to stick around. So Mozilla either has to support a large number of short-lived major versions, or lay out a clear policy on what to expect. They picked the later, so at least no one paying attention can't complain that they standardised on Firefox 6 and now there is no support just because someone did major memory handling improvements and it might break some idiosyncrasy they rely on. It leaves the door open for long term support releases from either Mozilla or other interested parties, without the expectation that any major release will be supported for X years.
Have you ever considered that you are not a representative sample of all Firefox users?
It only goes into the atmosphere if we don't capture it, which also happens to solve the wasted fresh water problem.
If only there was some way to turn that hydrogen back into freshwater after it's used to produce energy. Alas, nothing is ever that easy.
Nature doesn't give a shit about huge cancer rates, you probably would.