You sir, are a moron. You really have no clue about things like embedded systems programming do you? Not everything that needs to be programmed is run by your standard desktop PC. The thermostat in your house or your CD player don't have the luxury of a 3.0 GHz processor with 2 GB memory. Hell, there's still hardware at NASA that runs on old 486's! Not everything can be written using high-level languages like C# or Java. Get a clue about what your trying to talk about before making any comments.
- HC2
I'd rather be using assembly language for embedded systems. I'm sure most people would rather use C, but that's too high level for me. In assembly, goto is something you do all the time (jump instructions).
Re:The interface is terrible!
on
Pidgin 2.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is supposed to be a Trillian killer? The interface is horrible! I'm not even talking about the ability to "skin" the application. Simple things like notifying the user if he/she receives mail is ridiculous the way it's implemented.
As the other guy said, who is calling this a Trillian killer?
In any case, Trillian already killed itself by not including Jabber support in the free version. (And who is going to pay for that garbage anyway?)
Of course those of us who don't run Windows don't give a shit about Trillian. And even those of us who do, Trillian is still the shittier option because you can't use the free version with Google Talk.
As an alternative, why net take the best parts and build a decent server, and then build as many thin clients as you can make. That way you can also lock down the thin clients and only have to maintain software on the server.
Or better yet:
How about do a server with thin clients AND have thin clients that have multiple keyboard/mouse/monitors.
It seems to me that tagging works with IMAP. Everything looks the same with different TB profiles that have the same tags defined in prefs.js (for color, etc.).
Every time a new versions of Windows appears, the spin machines crank up about problems with it and how great the old version was. This happens so consistently that it seems like the M$ pr/astroturfing machinery is behind it. Windows is a monopoly and Vista will be a sales success and that's all there is to say about Vista...until the next version of Windows appears and then everyone waxes nostalgic about the goodness of Vista.
That's because most consumer versions of Windows all pretty much suck. I mean look at it:
Windows 3.0: sucked Windows 3.1: sucked Windows 3.11 for Workgroups: sucked Windows 95: sucked Windows 98: sucked Windows 98se: sucked Windows ME: sucked so bad no one used it except for those poor fools who didn't know better Windows XP: sucked, but surprisingly less than all other consumer releases
In my opinion, Vista is a repeat of Windows ME. It's sucked so bad no one is going to use it, except for those poor fools who bought a new computer with it installed. Windows ME had a few cool features, but its overall quality was horrible (like Vista). People will probably skip Vista like they skipped ME, unless Microsoft can really work some magic in their service packs.
I didn't include Windows 2000 (or NT or any server versions) because that was not a consumer OS. Though Windows 2000 actually didn't suck for a Windows release, it did have a problem of driver scarcity for a short while after its release (mainly because the NT series never had very much hardware support for consumer devices). But its the only Windows version that is decent enough to install in a VM. However, though Vista has a driver scarcity problem, its problems run a lot deeper than that (stability in general, software compatibility, performance).
I remember when XP was first released, a lot of people actually liked it and thought it was the best Windows ever. You don't see that with Vista, it's causing mostly pain for everyone trying to use it. Of course, a lot of users of XP had upgraded from the horrible piece of crap that was 98SE or even ME, so that may have something to do with it. The thing about XP was they actually got backwards compatibility mostly right. For those upgrading from 2000, there wasn't really any problems. Even people upgrading from 98SE didn't have too much to fuss about. The problems with Vista's compatibility are tremendous in comparison. There's just no excuse for this kind of shit. I didn't think XP was particularly great (crappy new GUI and bad security) despite its few good features (multi-user support and remote desktop), but at least it was usable for most people.
Thunderbird on the other hand is just a lot of promises. It still uses folders, while labels are obviously the way to go.
Thunderbird 2.0 has tags, which if I understand correctly is the same as labels, except you get to (or "have to") use folders in addition to tags. It doesn't appear to store the tags on the IMAP server, though, which is bummer and makes it useless for me (haven't tried it myself, but read some forum posting that said it didn't). IMAP is of course still folder based, so eliminating folders altogether is not possible.
The reason I mention IMAP is because I couldn't imagine someone would use POP3 instead of IMAP (unless you're one of those fools who use a webmail provider that doesn't support IMAP *cough*Gmail*cough*)
There is no integration with any reasonable calender (and don't call sunbird reasonable)
I think you mean "Lightning". Lightning isn't that great, but at least I can understand those damn Exchange invites I get from time to time.
Say it with me, "Ubuntu" "Ubuntu" "Ubuntu". Got it yet? You can also try "Ubuntu Linux" if you're talking to your boss. Or just keep it simple and say "Linux". Your boss may have heard of that by now.
Don't say "Ubuntu Breezy Feisty Badger Fawn Dapper Drake Linux" if its really going to cause your dumbass boss to not want to use it.
Ubuntu's release names has not stopped the company I work for from deploying it all over the place. Of course I don't work with a bunch of dumbass shiteaters.
Great idea! So where do I get those from? Oh wait, they don't exist. At least not for many (most?) wireless cards. NDISwrappers are the only way to get a lot of wireless cards working under Linux. Sure, they don't have monitor mode or other crap, but not everyone with a wireless card is going wardriving.
His point (which you missed) was make sure whatever hardware you buy is supported well so you don't have to run NDIScrapper. Don't buy hardware that isn't supported! And there is plenty of wireless devices that are supported.
If you are stuck with a laptop that has unsupported wireless, pay the $60 and get a card that does work. Yes, you'll have a card hanging out of your laptop, but what's your other choice? Run Windows? Don't make me laugh.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the software problems people are having with Vista. Their old software doesn't work. For example iTunes (sure you could blame Apple for that, but you could also blame Microsoft). People always talk about Windows and its backwards compatibility, but that just isn't the case with Vista.
Vista is NOT ready for the masses. I know quite a few non-techies who just bought new machines with Vista installed. They are having problems with getting their existing hardware to work (printers, scanners, etc) and getting wireless networking to work.
Maybe it will be better for the masses in a few years, but it isn't right now.
Huh? My build system is entirely automated. Cruisecontrol.NET, nant, msi installs, everything. I either click a button on a web page and the build happens, or it kicks off from a continuos integration or fixed schedule.
No thanks to Microsoft. For Cruisecontrol.NET and NAnt (and NUnit and various other open source tools for.Net), you can thank open source developers for making.Net versions of open source Java apps.
If I had a nickel for every time that I've had a.pdf file opening in my browser on my Win2K system at work, then had Acrobat Reader go off into hyperspace and lock my browser, I would be able to retire. Sometimes I can minimize the window, but if I try to close the browser, I always get the 'program not responding' pop-up window; the only way I can get control of my browser back is to forcex the Acrobat process, and about half the time that doesn't work and I'll have to forced the browser.
That's why you disable the plugin and have your browser launch Adobe Reader as a separate application for your PDF's. What advantage does using the plugin have over that?
Come on. More than anything, Microsoft is in a no-win situation to try and protect people from themselves. If everyone ran Linux instead of Vista there'd be the same damn problems.
Nice try with that tired old argument again. Guess what? Linux already went through a period of time where it was insecure and easy to exploit. That was in the mid 90's and Linux security was a joke back then (especially compared to FreeBSD and many other UNIX OS's). They fixed things and it got better.
People are always trying to make a correlation between popularity and the amount of exploits. Linux is more popular than it was in the mid 90's yet it is much more secure. Personally I don't think Microsoft has spent the resources necessary to really make secure software, and they don't have the advantage of open source ("many eyes on the code").
Please list some things Windows 3.0 does better than subsequent versions.
Why? Did you somehow get that I said that from what I wrote? If so, that is definitely not what I meant. What I meant was that I experienced the suckiness of Microsoft products starting with Windows 3.0 and everything after it. Windows 3.0 was terrible and I wouldn't say it was better than any of the subsequent versions. Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was a slight improvement, but continued to suck. Windows 95, 98, 98SE were unstable garbage. Windows ME I didn't even bother to try, I just watched other people as they had huge problems with it. Windows NT (and 2k and XP) wasn't nearly as bad, but only good in comparison to the 3.0/3.11/95/98/98SE/ME nightmare.
During all of this, I always had UNIX, Linux, and BSD to compare to, so I knew what a good OS should be.
It's a matter of what you want, for me the restrictive nature of Apple products is exactly what makes them suck more then Microsoft products (though only by a tiny amount) both are very restrictive but Apples moreso. I hate being told by my computer what I need to do, especially when I know its advice is wrong so I prefer not to use a system that does that.
Yep, that's why I use Linux for most of my computing. But for the few things that I can't find a good Linux app for, I'd much rather be using OS X than Windows. If I'm going to be using proprietary software, I'd much rather be using an OS that is UNIX based with elements of it being open source. If I'm going to be using something proprietary, I'll take the one that doesn't suck.
My beef with Microsoft has always been with the quality of their products. The fact that they took over the market just made it worse.
Exactly. I've found Microsoft's products to suck ever since using Windows 3.0 (MS-DOS versions were not bad, although nothing particularly great either). Every Windows version after that sucked, though it got slightly better with Win2k.
Apple's products may be a bit overrated and a little too restrictive, but their actual quality doesn't suck like Microsoft's software does.
Yes, Microsoft is the great evil, but they used to be "cool," kind of the way Google is now.
I don't know where you got this idea that Microsoft was "cool" as I assure you they never were, not for a second. Of course my memory of Microsoft started with one of the early versions of MS-DOS, so maybe they were cool for some time before that, but seriously doubt that.
Also, when somebody wants to discuss something, or just talk, over the Internet, he/she asks "What's your MSN?".
No one has ever asked me that, and if they did, I would punch them in the face. I get "Are you on MSN?" by some less technically inclined people, but never an assumption that I have an MSN account and actively use it.
(yes, I understand that MSN is popular in some countries)
Slashdot Mirror
Mac version:
http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/package.php/gaim
Or did you mean for it to actually act like a Mac app?
You sir, are a moron. You really have no clue about things like embedded systems programming do you? Not everything that needs to be programmed is run by your standard desktop PC. The thermostat in your house or your CD player don't have the luxury of a 3.0 GHz processor with 2 GB memory. Hell, there's still hardware at NASA that runs on old 486's! Not everything can be written using high-level languages like C# or Java. Get a clue about what your trying to talk about before making any comments.
- HC2
I'd rather be using assembly language for embedded systems. I'm sure most people would rather use C, but that's too high level for me. In assembly, goto is something you do all the time (jump instructions).
This is supposed to be a Trillian killer? The interface is horrible! I'm not even talking about the ability to "skin" the application. Simple things like notifying the user if he/she receives mail is ridiculous the way it's implemented.
As the other guy said, who is calling this a Trillian killer?
In any case, Trillian already killed itself by not including Jabber support in the free version. (And who is going to pay for that garbage anyway?)
Of course those of us who don't run Windows don't give a shit about Trillian. And even those of us who do, Trillian is still the shittier option because you can't use the free version with Google Talk.
The line that reads "free(b);" will never be executed.
As an alternative, why net take the best parts and build a decent server, and then build as many thin clients as you can make. That way you can also lock down the thin clients and only have to maintain software on the server.
Or better yet:
How about do a server with thin clients AND have thin clients that have multiple keyboard/mouse/monitors.
It seems to me that tagging works with IMAP. Everything looks the same with different TB profiles that have the same tags defined in prefs.js (for color, etc.).
Good to hear that...
Every time a new versions of Windows appears, the spin machines crank up about problems with it and how great the old version was. This happens so consistently that it seems like the M$ pr/astroturfing machinery is behind it. Windows is a monopoly and Vista will be a sales success and that's all there is to say about Vista...until the next version of Windows appears and then everyone waxes nostalgic about the goodness of Vista.
That's because most consumer versions of Windows all pretty much suck. I mean look at it:
Windows 3.0: sucked
Windows 3.1: sucked
Windows 3.11 for Workgroups: sucked
Windows 95: sucked
Windows 98: sucked
Windows 98se: sucked
Windows ME: sucked so bad no one used it except for those poor fools who didn't know better
Windows XP: sucked, but surprisingly less than all other consumer releases
In my opinion, Vista is a repeat of Windows ME. It's sucked so bad no one is going to use it, except for those poor fools who bought a new computer with it installed. Windows ME had a few cool features, but its overall quality was horrible (like Vista). People will probably skip Vista like they skipped ME, unless Microsoft can really work some magic in their service packs.
I didn't include Windows 2000 (or NT or any server versions) because that was not a consumer OS. Though Windows 2000 actually didn't suck for a Windows release, it did have a problem of driver scarcity for a short while after its release (mainly because the NT series never had very much hardware support for consumer devices). But its the only Windows version that is decent enough to install in a VM. However, though Vista has a driver scarcity problem, its problems run a lot deeper than that (stability in general, software compatibility, performance).
I remember when XP was first released, a lot of people actually liked it and thought it was the best Windows ever. You don't see that with Vista, it's causing mostly pain for everyone trying to use it. Of course, a lot of users of XP had upgraded from the horrible piece of crap that was 98SE or even ME, so that may have something to do with it. The thing about XP was they actually got backwards compatibility mostly right. For those upgrading from 2000, there wasn't really any problems. Even people upgrading from 98SE didn't have too much to fuss about. The problems with Vista's compatibility are tremendous in comparison. There's just no excuse for this kind of shit. I didn't think XP was particularly great (crappy new GUI and bad security) despite its few good features (multi-user support and remote desktop), but at least it was usable for most people.
Thunderbird on the other hand is just a lot of promises. It still uses folders, while labels are obviously the way to go.
Thunderbird 2.0 has tags, which if I understand correctly is the same as labels, except you get to (or "have to") use folders in addition to tags. It doesn't appear to store the tags on the IMAP server, though, which is bummer and makes it useless for me (haven't tried it myself, but read some forum posting that said it didn't). IMAP is of course still folder based, so eliminating folders altogether is not possible.
The reason I mention IMAP is because I couldn't imagine someone would use POP3 instead of IMAP (unless you're one of those fools who use a webmail provider that doesn't support IMAP *cough*Gmail*cough*)
There is no integration with any reasonable calender (and don't call sunbird reasonable)
I think you mean "Lightning". Lightning isn't that great, but at least I can understand those damn Exchange invites I get from time to time.
Say it with me, "Ubuntu" "Ubuntu" "Ubuntu". Got it yet? You can also try "Ubuntu Linux" if you're talking to your boss. Or just keep it simple and say "Linux". Your boss may have heard of that by now.
Don't say "Ubuntu Breezy Feisty Badger Fawn Dapper Drake Linux" if its really going to cause your dumbass boss to not want to use it.
Ubuntu's release names has not stopped the company I work for from deploying it all over the place. Of course I don't work with a bunch of dumbass shiteaters.
3) Feisty Fawn with "Beryl", whoever she is, written by a whole bunch of random geeks.
Just call it "Ubuntu". Is that so hard?
Great idea! So where do I get those from? Oh wait, they don't exist. At least not for many (most?) wireless cards. NDISwrappers are the only way to get a lot of wireless cards working under Linux. Sure, they don't have monitor mode or other crap, but not everyone with a wireless card is going wardriving.
His point (which you missed) was make sure whatever hardware you buy is supported well so you don't have to run NDIScrapper. Don't buy hardware that isn't supported! And there is plenty of wireless devices that are supported.
If you are stuck with a laptop that has unsupported wireless, pay the $60 and get a card that does work. Yes, you'll have a card hanging out of your laptop, but what's your other choice? Run Windows? Don't make me laugh.
Personally, I would love an iPhone minus the phone portion of it (and having to subscribe to a service). THAT might kill the iPod.
It's called "biofeedback"
Oh, and I forgot to mention the software problems people are having with Vista. Their old software doesn't work. For example iTunes (sure you could blame Apple for that, but you could also blame Microsoft). People always talk about Windows and its backwards compatibility, but that just isn't the case with Vista.
For the masses its just fine
Vista is NOT ready for the masses. I know quite a few non-techies who just bought new machines with Vista installed. They are having problems with getting their existing hardware to work (printers, scanners, etc) and getting wireless networking to work.
Maybe it will be better for the masses in a few years, but it isn't right now.
Huh? My build system is entirely automated. Cruisecontrol.NET, nant, msi installs, everything. I either click a button on a web page and the build happens, or it kicks off from a continuos integration or fixed schedule.
.Net), you can thank open source developers for making .Net versions of open source Java apps.
No thanks to Microsoft. For Cruisecontrol.NET and NAnt (and NUnit and various other open source tools for
If I had a nickel for every time that I've had a .pdf file opening in my browser on my Win2K system at work, then had Acrobat Reader go off into hyperspace and lock my browser, I would be able to retire. Sometimes I can minimize the window, but if I try to close the browser, I always get the 'program not responding' pop-up window; the only way I can get control of my browser back is to forcex the Acrobat process, and about half the time that doesn't work and I'll have to forced the browser.
That's why you disable the plugin and have your browser launch Adobe Reader as a separate application for your PDF's. What advantage does using the plugin have over that?
Don't forget cell phones, PDA's, and other devices. Yep there are viruses for cell phones.
Come on. More than anything, Microsoft is in a no-win situation to try and protect people from themselves. If everyone ran Linux instead of Vista there'd be the same damn problems.
Nice try with that tired old argument again. Guess what? Linux already went through a period of time where it was insecure and easy to exploit. That was in the mid 90's and Linux security was a joke back then (especially compared to FreeBSD and many other UNIX OS's). They fixed things and it got better.
People are always trying to make a correlation between popularity and the amount of exploits. Linux is more popular than it was in the mid 90's yet it is much more secure. Personally I don't think Microsoft has spent the resources necessary to really make secure software, and they don't have the advantage of open source ("many eyes on the code").
Please list some things Windows 3.0 does better than subsequent versions.
Why? Did you somehow get that I said that from what I wrote? If so, that is definitely not what I meant. What I meant was that I experienced the suckiness of Microsoft products starting with Windows 3.0 and everything after it. Windows 3.0 was terrible and I wouldn't say it was better than any of the subsequent versions. Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was a slight improvement, but continued to suck. Windows 95, 98, 98SE were unstable garbage. Windows ME I didn't even bother to try, I just watched other people as they had huge problems with it. Windows NT (and 2k and XP) wasn't nearly as bad, but only good in comparison to the 3.0/3.11/95/98/98SE/ME nightmare.
During all of this, I always had UNIX, Linux, and BSD to compare to, so I knew what a good OS should be.
It's a matter of what you want, for me the restrictive nature of Apple products is exactly what makes them suck more then Microsoft products (though only by a tiny amount) both are very restrictive but Apples moreso. I hate being told by my computer what I need to do, especially when I know its advice is wrong so I prefer not to use a system that does that.
Yep, that's why I use Linux for most of my computing. But for the few things that I can't find a good Linux app for, I'd much rather be using OS X than Windows. If I'm going to be using proprietary software, I'd much rather be using an OS that is UNIX based with elements of it being open source. If I'm going to be using something proprietary, I'll take the one that doesn't suck.
My beef with Microsoft has always been with the quality of their products. The fact that they took over the market just made it worse.
Apple products don't suck, and Microsoft ones do.
Exactly. I've found Microsoft's products to suck ever since using Windows 3.0 (MS-DOS versions were not bad, although nothing particularly great either). Every Windows version after that sucked, though it got slightly better with Win2k.
Apple's products may be a bit overrated and a little too restrictive, but their actual quality doesn't suck like Microsoft's software does.
Yes, Microsoft is the great evil, but they used to be "cool," kind of the way Google is now.
I don't know where you got this idea that Microsoft was "cool" as I assure you they never were, not for a second. Of course my memory of Microsoft started with one of the early versions of MS-DOS, so maybe they were cool for some time before that, but seriously doubt that.
GoDaddy can GoFuckThemselves
Also, when somebody wants to discuss something, or just talk, over the Internet, he/she asks "What's your MSN?".
No one has ever asked me that, and if they did, I would punch them in the face. I get "Are you on MSN?" by some less technically inclined people, but never an assumption that I have an MSN account and actively use it.
(yes, I understand that MSN is popular in some countries)