1. The proper. Use IMAP server that is online. Like at your ISP if you can't provide aviability yourself.
2. Poor mans IMAP. Use POP with few accounts and aliases. This also requires the server to be aviable.
Make one account name it - main@account.tld - make it forward all incoming email to other two (or N) accounts like: desktop@account.tld, laptop@account.tld... Make your desktop client use the desktop account and laptop use the laptop account. Make your both (or N clients) do BCC to your main@account.tld for any sent meassage.
Voila - done, you have the same messages (incoming and outgoing) on both (or N) POP accounts. You just need to download them to clients.
> I have used Nokias and they like before, but although the > interface s better often again signal quality is low,
And you think that oh-so-great-praise-Apple can make, a better phone than companies that do it for years? Nokia, Ericsson and so fotrth right now do great phones and lots of research on communication and such. So I am not exactly convinced that if Apple would do a Phone it would have better signal qualit. In fact I can also think the opposite - since Apple is known for doing stupid stuff like shielding the wifi antena with aluminium case (like in PowerBooks).:)
> the UI is not great and integration with a computer is primitive > compared to what it could be if carriers were not so reluctant > to allow networking outside thier own networks.
That is getting to not longer be a problem. Right now I own Nokia E61 (a bit bulky but does the stuff I need) and it comes equipped with wifi and also a SIP client.
Speaking of integration Apple could integrate their phone with Mac OS but that is merely it. Most of this phone users would be running Windows any way (same thing as with iPod - most of its owners run Windows) so there is not much that Apple can do with integration meaning syncing contacts/emails etc. since they will mostly need to plug into ActiveSync which is not so great. So also I don't see any improvement here also.
> One thing alone that Apple could to do a phone is take that > ear-destroying volume of the iPod and transfer it into a phone.
I didn't really known that iPod comes with cell-phone like headset. It doesn't.
> I was trying to answer a call in the middle of Disney World > recently - I might as well have been trying to listen > for the oceon in a sea shell.
Have you been hibernated for last few years? Most of decent phones come with loudspeaker mode. It works very well for me and in fact has a quite ear-blowing volume.
> So please, do not talk to me about power and design and > ease of use and then in the same breath bring up the maker > of a phone I have almost taken a sledge hammer to and > at least three seperate occasions.
I do agree that there are areas that cellphones can improve in. I just don't think that Apple can do it. It is certain that from Apple phone mostly MacOS users would benefit (integration, sameless design). But Mac OS users is like 3% of computer users and keep in mind that cellphones are used also by people who do not use computers at all.
> You may have low standards with phones, but I would like much more.
And you bought Motorola RAZR?:> Wow that is a good taste...
Linux is an Operating System - it has drivers for *existing* hardware. It is really hard to write drivers (or modules in Linux-speak) for dealing with non-existing hardware - I see real problems with testing it.:)
So obviously if you plan to build hardware that will run Linux you need to use existing chips that have support in Linux. On the other way you may be willing (but there is no economical point for you really) to design some brand new hardware - just make sure it is atractive so few linux-heads-devs will use it and also make sure you release full specification of it.
> Steve uses a cellphone - Hmmm..... Now here's where it gets interesting.
Quite a different matter. Steve likes to control things. They have a tight grip over iPods/iTunes (main revenue stream) - they own it. They have tight grip on Mac OS X - it can run only their hardware.
In fact it is a semi monopoly. Thiking of a PC I can get a PC that runs Windows/Linux whatever from any vendor I like. Be it IBM/Lenoovo, Dell, HP, smaller shops etc. - if I don't like HP I go to Dell and vice versa.
Now if from some reason you want to switch hardware vendors and still run Mac OS X you can't do it. You must go to one vendor. I have quite really have enough of Apple and this is probably my last Mac. It is not due Apple directly. I live in Poland and here there is no Apple Company - here we have Apple IMC (Independent Marketing Company) Poland - they have shitty service and given that Mac like any other PC breaks in one or two years and needs service (mine has dead SuperDrive) it is a PITA.
So basically with all above in mind Apple WILL NOT go into cellphones since in this market they are not dictating the rules - the service provider are. Also the cellphone market is saturated so I don't really imagine what Apple can bring to it.
> Is there a cell phone on the market today that even approaches the power, > design and ease of use of a Mac or an iPod? Obviously, no.
Obviously a Nokia or Motorola. I know you mac-heads just love your iPods and Macs but please keep in mind that there is like 1/4 of whole Earths population of cellphones out here and just a handfull of iPods and even less Macs.
> Now, is Steve willing to shake up the cell phone industry like he did the music biz?
I think they are not in position to shake anything in that market and Steve knows that.
> The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't > release Mac OS X for the PC.
Well that depends on definition of a PC. There are few:
1. A PC is a Personal Computer which Macs always were. Just from the begining. With this definition Mac is and always was a PC.
2. A PC as an Intel/x86 clone - well now Mac *is* an Intel PC and can run Windows and other PC OSes - so it is a PC. Therefore Apple released Mac OS X PCs.
The point you was trying to make is that Apple makes Mac OS X for Apple-Branded-PCs only.:)
> If a linux distro has a gcc installed by default (Hopefully > the same one that was used to compile the kernel, cough, > unlike redhat, cough), it chould be a sign that the > distro may be bloated and a heavy weight.
I don't want to judge about bloat and stuff. But for sure *casual* Linux distro will include GCC installed since you usually need it to install (link it) closed only software like nvidia/ati drivers and vmware. Also GCC is needed by stuff like DKMS framework etc.
In fact you should not care if a compiler is installed or not. If it does what it is there for automagically then there is no problem at all. It is as transparent as having a printer spooler or whatever other component in system.
Well this is quite easy issue. For MSIE that is MS that says what site is OK or no. So there is convicted monopoly laveraging it's monopoly again trying to protect me (and by the way doing their own business with filters).
On the other side is Fx or Opera using third party blacklists (since they do browsers not other stuff like lists).
So the difference between MSIE+MS filters is that both come from the same monopoly. Fx or Opera use third party data (assuming that is not the same benefit for them) for filtering *bad* websites.
What are the fines in such situations? This is clearly they fault - the've taken personal data and haven't took enough care of it (in fact they were stupid enough to feed that data into laptop and get it stollen). What does US law says about it? In Poland (European Union) they would face severe consequences.
> Also their choice of gNewSense as an alternative OS is > weak because it lacks in the same departments: null > communication skills, poor design, ZERO instructions. > They could at least have picked Ubuntu, which looks much > more professional and at least would make an unexperienced > user that the thing may actually work.
Well until reading your post I haven't know about existence of any gNewSense.:> Maybe they picked it up since it names itself GNU/Linux instead of just Linux as Ubuntu does.:))) I know this is pretty retarded but it looks like I am right.
I do respect Stallman and The FSF for some stuff they've made (mostly the software and the legal work they make). But sadly - recently they just insist to look like bunch of fuckin totally unprofessional assholes:(
Really.:) I think the message that the site wish to send is good - don't use Vista since it limits your freedoms. OK for me. I can take care of my freedoms on my own no problem.
But the point I am making is the site is crappy. The site is ugly. It consists of bunch of long TEXTS (like anybody likes to read long texts). It should communicate better with some pictorials and clear picture of what Vista will not allow you to do.
> No, I'm no Microsoft fan but let's stick to facts > rather than "science fiction" FUD stories...
These are not SF FUD stories. There are a lot of people who: - don't know shit about security - don't know shit about patching - own USB xDSL modem or connect to *untrusted* network with wifi or something similar (do you carry a $50 router with your laptop?) - use computer to Just Work With it - as a tool - you know
And Windows is not uber-user-friendly there. In fact I think you need to be relatively skilled to set up XP so it is relatively secured. Not something your mom or dad (I assume) can do with their computers.
Recently a friend of mine reinstalled Windows (since it was wrecked to the point of no other option, at least for her) from CDs (sans SP) which came with her laptop. After 1 minute the system was infected and unusable it havent even a slight CHANCE of updating itself.
MS made some stupid decissions few years ago and now they pay the price. This is not FUD. People do not have the latest Vista and so on. Some of them use 5 year old computers since they tend to work for them.
I can surely install old version of Linux distribution or OSX and do not get infected in 10 minutes after connecting to untrusted network.
Yes but no Polish (or any other than few) language version is supported. So it is useless for me.
It just shows how retarded update management is in Windows. It is like 10 years behind Linux and 5 behind OSX. And Vista is no different either.
Re:Hmmm....WMV9 on OS X?
on
VLC 0.8.6 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
No. It would be illegal (in some countries) to use Windows files - they got its own license and it wold be sloppy. Instead VLC uses ffmpeg codecs which implement (partially) WMV9 decoding (but no DRM and no encoding *FIXME*). Ffmpeg codecs are another implementation (than Windows DLLs) achieved through reverse-engeenering (which also may be illegal to use in some countries).
I think that there are none "inherently insecure" things. Anything can get somehow secured. I think that given a program that is specifically designed to be insecure one can still somehow (maybe by modyfiyng the enviroment it runs it or whatever) relatively secure. Well security in fact is quite relative.
So it is not that using AJAX itself is insecure. It is that probably lot of people will try to make AJAX apps since it is trendy right now. But AJAX *is* quite complicated or just new stuff. Somebody without experience and deep understanding how these things (and for me they are quite complex) works will probably make mistakes using some code generator and generally don't understanding fully what is going on.
It is nothing new. Security is mostly about knowledge and understanding. You can't make something secure that you do not know deeply and don't understand.
It is not technical (like this technology is insecure) issue IMHO.
Maybe. I don't know.:) Main plugin that I use is Flash. It is embeded in most of the pages so I think I would notice problems with it.
As for PDF and other plugins I don't really use them. I prefer to download the PDF and then open it in Acrobat. Also you haven't stated which platform are you reffering to - Linux? Windows? OSX?
With Linux (my main platform) I can imagine such problems with *closed* *source*, *binary* plugins that are usualy *awkard* and use *old* ABI. I am sure that there may be a problem in such setup. It is not exactly Fx problem - I am sure Fx devs do what they can to make these things work but you have very much variables in typical Linux setup so probably it is hard to debug. I think the problem is mostly with using closed obscure plugins not with Fx itself.
But still my point is that you can fill in a bug report (have you done this?). I strongly encourage you to do so. By filling a bug report (and if other users are submitting/confirming similar problems) you are getting developers attention and if this can be fixed I think it will be fixed in upcoming release.
> I must say, I'm having a feeling akin to the one I had when Netscape went over the 3.0 > version number: things feel somewhat slower and buggier, with more bling that I don't > really need.
I don't know what you/need expect from a browser but from my point of view Fx 2.0 *is* faster and uses less memory. Also I find that few new features (improved tabbed browsing, closed tab history, more polished interface) simply nice and usefull to me.
What bloat you are reffering to exactly? Since Fx 2.0 comes with very few new visible features and all of them are usefull for some people. And what bling?
> One of the most irritating "features" I keep hitting is whenever I open something with an extension, > be it a pdf with Acrobat reader, a flash animation, a video with mplayer or a java applet:
These are not extensions but plugins. Plugin is binary platform specific library that you load up into the browser. Extension is multiplatform XUL code running on top of Gecko/Fx engine.
> about 1 out of 10 times, the cpu goes to 100% and FF is dead in the water.
I can not confirm that. Have you tried your Linux (I assume Linux since you've mentioned mplayer) distribution's Bugzilla? I use Linux, I use features you mentioned and Fx does not crash on me. Neither I've seen reports similar to yours so.
(...)
> I don't know, perhaps there's a pattern with very large, popular > open-source projects: the more popular they grow, the more developers > tend to focus on adding features instead of correcting bugs...
To cut the bullshit. Have you filled a bug report about your problem?
What for you would like to do it? Just for the sake of it? None of Apple/OSX strenghts would really show up in such setup:
1. Drivers - If you need, a decent BSD with X11 go use FreeBSD and craft yourself hardware that works with FreeBSD. It should not be hard to specify a set of fully working hardware with great drivers for FreeBSD. I think you have much more options with PC hardware and FreeBSD (working decently) than with OSX. Or maybe go Linux, not much different from BSD really.
2. Software - None of OSX software (such like Photoshop, Office etc.) will work under X11. And in fact it is less decently packaged X11 software than for FreeBSD or Linux.
3. Support, quality etc. - you won't get any of this from Apple in such setup. With FreeBSD or Linux you will get decent quality and community support because running kernel and userspace/X11 on top of it is what we do with Linux/FreeBSD.
So I don't really see benefits of such setup. Go get yourself decent PC or laptop with supported hardware. Install FreeBSD or Linux on it and you will have that what you are seeking in quite polished form.
This is not about choices but about poor OS and UI design.
WTF you need a "Restart" button for? You usually do not restart your machine from your own will. In Windows software updates, instalations and other stuff forces restart on you. Get rid of the need of restarting and you don't have need for Restart button. One choice left.
Also the items are poorly organized. Loging out and switching to login screen are not POWER related, these are LOGIN related. The structure should be organised in other way (order does matter):
LOGIN group (with f.e. key icon) - Login screen (i.e. switch to login screen - lock the session and allow others to login) - Logout (closes the session)
POWER group (with f.e. plug icon) - Sleep (put the machine to sleep) - Hibernate (hibernate the machine) - Shutdown (shutdown the machine)
You have to be retarded to not get it right in UI. Really.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Great argument here - just mention that probably some people will die due to patents and describe the situation with drug patents. Nice one.
> GPL for non commercial, extra dollars for commercial.
Well you can use GPL version for commercial projects and The Other license for totally uncomercial projects.
1. The proper.
Use IMAP server that is online. Like at your ISP if you can't provide aviability yourself.
2. Poor mans IMAP.
Use POP with few accounts and aliases. This also requires the server to be aviable.
Make one account name it - main@account.tld - make it forward all incoming email to other two (or N) accounts like: desktop@account.tld, laptop@account.tld... Make your desktop client use the desktop account and laptop use the laptop account. Make your both (or N clients) do BCC to your main@account.tld for any sent meassage.
Voila - done, you have the same messages (incoming and outgoing) on both (or N) POP accounts. You just need to download them to clients.
> I have used Nokias and they like before, but although the
:)
:> Wow that is a good taste...
> interface s better often again signal quality is low,
And you think that oh-so-great-praise-Apple can make, a better phone than companies that do it for years? Nokia, Ericsson and so fotrth right now do great phones and lots of research on communication and such. So I am not exactly convinced that if Apple would do a Phone it would have better signal qualit. In fact I can also think the opposite - since Apple is known for doing stupid stuff like shielding the wifi antena with aluminium case (like in PowerBooks).
> the UI is not great and integration with a computer is primitive
> compared to what it could be if carriers were not so reluctant
> to allow networking outside thier own networks.
That is getting to not longer be a problem. Right now I own Nokia E61 (a bit bulky but does the stuff I need) and it comes equipped with wifi and also a SIP client.
Speaking of integration Apple could integrate their phone with Mac OS but that is merely it. Most of this phone users would be running Windows any way (same thing as with iPod - most of its owners run Windows) so there is not much that Apple can do with integration meaning syncing contacts/emails etc. since they will mostly need to plug into ActiveSync which is not so great. So also I don't see any improvement here also.
> One thing alone that Apple could to do a phone is take that
> ear-destroying volume of the iPod and transfer it into a phone.
I didn't really known that iPod comes with cell-phone like headset. It doesn't.
> I was trying to answer a call in the middle of Disney World
> recently - I might as well have been trying to listen
> for the oceon in a sea shell.
Have you been hibernated for last few years? Most of decent phones come with loudspeaker mode. It works very well for me and in fact has a quite ear-blowing volume.
> So please, do not talk to me about power and design and
> ease of use and then in the same breath bring up the maker
> of a phone I have almost taken a sledge hammer to and
> at least three seperate occasions.
You have generalized one not-so-good cellphone to majority of others. There is a flaw in your reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization
I do agree that there are areas that cellphones can improve in. I just don't think that Apple can do it. It is certain that from Apple phone mostly MacOS users would benefit (integration, sameless design). But Mac OS users is like 3% of computer users and keep in mind that cellphones are used also by people who do not use computers at all.
> You may have low standards with phones, but I would like much more.
And you bought Motorola RAZR?
Linux is an Operating System - it has drivers for *existing* hardware. It is really hard to write drivers (or modules in Linux-speak) for dealing with non-existing hardware - I see real problems with testing it. :)
So obviously if you plan to build hardware that will run Linux you need to use existing chips that have support in Linux. On the other way you may be willing (but there is no economical point for you really) to design some brand new hardware - just make sure it is atractive so few linux-heads-devs will use it and also make sure you release full specification of it.
> Steve uses a cellphone - Hmmm..... Now here's where it gets interesting.
Quite a different matter. Steve likes to control things. They have a tight grip over iPods/iTunes (main revenue stream) - they own it. They have tight grip on Mac OS X - it can run only their hardware.
In fact it is a semi monopoly. Thiking of a PC I can get a PC that runs Windows/Linux whatever from any vendor I like. Be it IBM/Lenoovo, Dell, HP, smaller shops etc. - if I don't like HP I go to Dell and vice versa.
Now if from some reason you want to switch hardware vendors and still run Mac OS X you can't do it. You must go to one vendor. I have quite really have enough of Apple and this is probably my last Mac. It is not due Apple directly. I live in Poland and here there is no Apple Company - here we have Apple IMC (Independent Marketing Company) Poland - they have shitty service and given that Mac like any other PC breaks in one or two years and needs service (mine has dead SuperDrive) it is a PITA.
So basically with all above in mind Apple WILL NOT go into cellphones since in this market they are not dictating the rules - the service provider are. Also the cellphone market is saturated so I don't really imagine what Apple can bring to it.
> Is there a cell phone on the market today that even approaches the power,
> design and ease of use of a Mac or an iPod? Obviously, no.
Obviously a Nokia or Motorola. I know you mac-heads just love your iPods and Macs but please keep in mind that there is like 1/4 of whole Earths population of cellphones out here and just a handfull of iPods and even less Macs.
> Now, is Steve willing to shake up the cell phone industry like he did the music biz?
I think they are not in position to shake anything in that market and Steve knows that.
> The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't
:)
> release Mac OS X for the PC.
Well that depends on definition of a PC. There are few:
1. A PC is a Personal Computer which Macs always were. Just from the begining. With this definition Mac is and always was a PC.
2. A PC as an Intel/x86 clone - well now Mac *is* an Intel PC and can run Windows and other PC OSes - so it is a PC. Therefore Apple released Mac OS X PCs.
The point you was trying to make is that Apple makes Mac OS X for Apple-Branded-PCs only.
> If a linux distro has a gcc installed by default (Hopefully
> the same one that was used to compile the kernel, cough,
> unlike redhat, cough), it chould be a sign that the
> distro may be bloated and a heavy weight.
I don't want to judge about bloat and stuff. But for sure *casual* Linux distro will include GCC installed since you usually need it to install (link it) closed only software like nvidia/ati drivers and vmware. Also GCC is needed by stuff like DKMS framework etc.
In fact you should not care if a compiler is installed or not. If it does what it is there for automagically then there is no problem at all. It is as transparent as having a printer spooler or whatever other component in system.
They did! They just keep it secret before they patent it. Otherwise some Linux guys would steal MS innovation!
How a "drink" translates to actual *ammounts* (like 10grams of pure alcohol)?
;)
Also most civilisations I know usually have fair tradition of drinking so it should not be bad after all.
Well this is quite easy issue. For MSIE that is MS that says what site is OK or no. So there is convicted monopoly laveraging it's monopoly again trying to protect me (and by the way doing their own business with filters).
On the other side is Fx or Opera using third party blacklists (since they do browsers not other stuff like lists).
So the difference between MSIE+MS filters is that both come from the same monopoly. Fx or Opera use third party data (assuming that is not the same benefit for them) for filtering *bad* websites.
What are the fines in such situations? This is clearly they fault - the've taken personal data and haven't took enough care of it (in fact they were stupid enough to feed that data into laptop and get it stollen). What does US law says about it? In Poland (European Union) they would face severe consequences.
> Also their choice of gNewSense as an alternative OS is
:> Maybe they picked it up since it names itself GNU/Linux instead of just Linux as Ubuntu does. :))) I know this is pretty retarded but it looks like I am right.
:(
> weak because it lacks in the same departments: null
> communication skills, poor design, ZERO instructions.
> They could at least have picked Ubuntu, which looks much
> more professional and at least would make an unexperienced
> user that the thing may actually work.
Well until reading your post I haven't know about existence of any gNewSense.
I do respect Stallman and The FSF for some stuff they've made (mostly the software and the legal work they make). But sadly - recently they just insist to look like bunch of fuckin totally unprofessional assholes
Really. :) I think the message that the site wish to send is good - don't use Vista since it limits your freedoms. OK for me. I can take care of my freedoms on my own no problem.
But the point I am making is the site is crappy. The site is ugly. It consists of bunch of long TEXTS (like anybody likes to read long texts). It should communicate better with some pictorials and clear picture of what Vista will not allow you to do.
> No, I'm no Microsoft fan but let's stick to facts
> rather than "science fiction" FUD stories...
These are not SF FUD stories. There are a lot of people who:
- don't know shit about security
- don't know shit about patching
- own USB xDSL modem or connect to *untrusted* network with wifi or something similar (do you carry a $50 router with your laptop?)
- use computer to Just Work With it - as a tool - you know
And Windows is not uber-user-friendly there. In fact I think you need to be relatively skilled to set up XP so it is relatively secured. Not something your mom or dad (I assume) can do with their computers.
Recently a friend of mine reinstalled Windows (since it was wrecked to the point of no other option, at least for her) from CDs (sans SP) which came with her laptop. After 1 minute the system was infected and unusable it havent even a slight CHANCE of updating itself.
MS made some stupid decissions few years ago and now they pay the price. This is not FUD. People do not have the latest Vista and so on. Some of them use 5 year old computers since they tend to work for them.
I can surely install old version of Linux distribution or OSX and do not get infected in 10 minutes after connecting to untrusted network.
Yes but no Polish (or any other than few) language version is supported. So it is useless for me.
It just shows how retarded update management is in Windows. It is like 10 years behind Linux and 5 behind OSX. And Vista is no different either.
No. It would be illegal (in some countries) to use Windows files - they got its own license and it wold be sloppy. Instead VLC uses ffmpeg codecs which implement (partially) WMV9 decoding (but no DRM and no encoding *FIXME*). Ffmpeg codecs are another implementation (than Windows DLLs) achieved through reverse-engeenering (which also may be illegal to use in some countries).
:)
As for now from ffmpeg documentation:
http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/ffmpeg-doc.html#SEC23
WMV8 and WMV9 are "not completely working". But I think they may work well for 90% of media files out there.
So kudos for VLC team for another great release.
Please... .Mac... Maybe first make .Mac less retarded and then try to build serious services around it.
.Mac's only advantage is that is tied deeply into OSX. And for other functionalities it is just bad.
What I mean by retarded? Here is what:
I think that there are none "inherently insecure" things. Anything can get somehow secured. I think that given a program that is specifically designed to be insecure one can still somehow (maybe by modyfiyng the enviroment it runs it or whatever) relatively secure. Well security in fact is quite relative.
So it is not that using AJAX itself is insecure. It is that probably lot of people will try to make AJAX apps since it is trendy right now. But AJAX *is* quite complicated or just new stuff. Somebody without experience and deep understanding how these things (and for me they are quite complex) works will probably make mistakes using some code generator and generally don't understanding fully what is going on.
It is nothing new. Security is mostly about knowledge and understanding. You can't make something secure that you do not know deeply and don't understand.
It is not technical (like this technology is insecure) issue IMHO.
Maybe. I don't know. :) Main plugin that I use is Flash. It is embeded in most of the pages so I think I would notice problems with it.
As for PDF and other plugins I don't really use them. I prefer to download the PDF and then open it in Acrobat. Also you haven't stated which platform are you reffering to - Linux? Windows? OSX?
With Linux (my main platform) I can imagine such problems with *closed* *source*, *binary* plugins that are usualy *awkard* and use *old* ABI. I am sure that there may be a problem in such setup. It is not exactly Fx problem - I am sure Fx devs do what they can to make these things work but you have very much variables in typical Linux setup so probably it is hard to debug. I think the problem is mostly with using closed obscure plugins not with Fx itself.
But still my point is that you can fill in a bug report (have you done this?). I strongly encourage you to do so. By filling a bug report (and if other users are submitting/confirming similar problems) you are getting developers attention and if this can be fixed I think it will be fixed in upcoming release.
> I must say, I'm having a feeling akin to the one I had when Netscape went over the 3.0
> version number: things feel somewhat slower and buggier, with more bling that I don't
> really need.
I don't know what you/need expect from a browser but from my point of view Fx 2.0 *is* faster and uses less memory. Also I find that few new features (improved tabbed browsing, closed tab history, more polished interface) simply nice and usefull to me.
What bloat you are reffering to exactly? Since Fx 2.0 comes with very few new visible features and all of them are usefull for some people. And what bling?
> One of the most irritating "features" I keep hitting is whenever I open something with an extension,
> be it a pdf with Acrobat reader, a flash animation, a video with mplayer or a java applet:
These are not extensions but plugins. Plugin is binary platform specific library that you load up into the browser. Extension is multiplatform XUL code running on top of Gecko/Fx engine.
> about 1 out of 10 times, the cpu goes to 100% and FF is dead in the water.
I can not confirm that. Have you tried your Linux (I assume Linux since you've mentioned mplayer) distribution's Bugzilla? I use Linux, I use features you mentioned and Fx does not crash on me. Neither I've seen reports similar to yours so.
(...)
> I don't know, perhaps there's a pattern with very large, popular
> open-source projects: the more popular they grow, the more developers
> tend to focus on adding features instead of correcting bugs...
To cut the bullshit. Have you filled a bug report about your problem?
But really. You should play the games you like.
PPC Macs are out. ;) Didn't you know that?
What for you would like to do it? Just for the sake of it? None of Apple/OSX strenghts would really show up in such setup:
1. Drivers - If you need, a decent BSD with X11 go use FreeBSD and craft yourself hardware that works with FreeBSD. It should not be hard to specify a set of fully working hardware with great drivers for FreeBSD. I think you have much more options with PC hardware and FreeBSD (working decently) than with OSX. Or maybe go Linux, not much different from BSD really.
2. Software - None of OSX software (such like Photoshop, Office etc.) will work under X11. And in fact it is less decently packaged X11 software than for FreeBSD or Linux.
3. Support, quality etc. - you won't get any of this from Apple in such setup. With FreeBSD or Linux you will get decent quality and community support because running kernel and userspace/X11 on top of it is what we do with Linux/FreeBSD.
So I don't really see benefits of such setup. Go get yourself decent PC or laptop with supported hardware. Install FreeBSD or Linux on it and you will have that what you are seeking in quite polished form.
This is not about choices but about poor OS and UI design.
:)
WTF you need a "Restart" button for? You usually do not restart your machine from your own will. In Windows software updates, instalations and other stuff forces restart on you. Get rid of the need of restarting and you don't have need for Restart button. One choice left.
Also the items are poorly organized. Loging out and switching to login screen are not POWER related, these are LOGIN related. The structure should be organised in other way (order does matter):
LOGIN group (with f.e. key icon)
- Login screen (i.e. switch to login screen - lock the session and allow others to login)
- Logout (closes the session)
POWER group (with f.e. plug icon)
- Sleep (put the machine to sleep)
- Hibernate (hibernate the machine)
- Shutdown (shutdown the machine)
You have to be retarded to not get it right in UI. Really.