I've actually been all for Steam, but only because it's generally meant good things so far. If they actually start making these inescapable -- putting them in the middle of classic maps like Dust -- well, under ordinary circumstances, no one would upgrade, but this is Steam, so you don't have that choice.
That kind of makes sense, but I should point out that it really doesn't take much for them to go from "Your site can't exist for the sole purpose of doing this illegal thing," to "Your site is guilty of copyright infringement unless you take steps to prevent it."
And at that point, every general-purpose tool suffers. Google should not have to implement a "SafeSearch"-like feature to hide suspected copyrighted material -- and even if it did, Google would be useless without the ability to disable such a feature.
Someone else has pointed out that the Win32 API was available on Win3.1.
Integrated TCP/IP support, rather than relying on an optional extension
So what's wrong with an optional extension?
Increased maximum supported memory configuration to (IIRC) 256MB from 16MB
Ah, true. But then, Windows 3.1 actually ran in 16 megs. Win98 probably used 16 megs just for the OS.
Cheapshots aside, according to Wikipedia, Win3.1 supports 386 Enhanced Mode:
386 Enhanced mode implemented all the benefits of Standard mode, plus 32-bit addressing and paging for faster memory access, plus virtual 8086 mode for safer execution of MS-DOS programs: each of them now ran in a virtual machine.
I don't know if that does anything about the 16 meg limit, but at the time, MS recommended 8 megs of RAM for "optimal" performance. So really, it's kind of like how XP 64-bit now supports more than 4 gigs of RAM, but notice how people aren't exactly flocking to it -- frankly, my 2 gigs is more than enough for now.
Desktop-oriented GUI
And how is that different than maximizing the Program Manager? I mean, there are some nice, cosmetic things, but really...
Freecell
Which was on the Plato -- and I believe there was a Win32 version that ran on Win3.1.
I mean, there were improvements, but nothing really huge. Kind of like Vista right now.
From what I can tell, this is already happening. We already have all the textures in main memory. Unused textures fall out of GPU memory to make way for more textures from main memory, but they're all still in main memory.
Or is the idea here that you can have less main memory, because it'll actually remove stuff from main memory when it goes to the card, and read it back from the card when it falls out of that card? In this case, I think it'd be faster and cheaper to buy another half gig of system RAM than to buy Windows.
"That may well be true. But it's the only store that sells apples."
Cute analogy, but not entirely accurate.
I've got one for you: One fruit stand sells you apples and charges you $1000/apple.
Another fruit stand sells you grapefruits, and is charging $5000/grapefruit. They have a couple of loyal customers, who've developed their own culture around how they're not eating apples, and how a grapefruit really is worth so much more than an apple, and how much better they are than everyone else.
Most people go straight to the store selling apples (which is Microsoft in our story), occasionally looking wistfully at the grapefruit stand (Apple), wishing they could afford to get one and still get an apple, but unwilling to give that apple up, even when the apple stand raises prices to $2000/apple, and the grapefruit stand lowers them to $2500/grapefruit. I mean, $500 is a lot, and is a grapefruit really that much better than an apple? What if I don't like the grapefruit? It's an acquired taste, after all...
There's also a small farm nearby. It grows oranges, bananas, grapes, pineapples, strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, mulberries, watermelons, mangos, dates, pomegranites... It is open to the public, and you can just walk in and grab one. All kinds of people are walking in, eating fruit, watering and tending the orchard, planting seeds.
Occasionally, you see someone new walk in and grab an orange -- it can't hurt, right? -- while clutching their apple or grapefruit close, as if afraid that the people planting seeds will touch it with their dirty hands.
Now, looking at this situation, I can understand that an apple is unique, and a grapefruit is unique. And sometimes, you've just got to have one, and when that happens, it does seem unfair that you have to pay thousands of dollars for a piece of fruit. But I wonder why more people don't just walk into the orchard/farm (Linux) and fill up a basket of free fruit.
Because get this: You don't really need an apple. There's a lot of propaganda that says you do -- an apple a day keeps the doctor away, right? But you won't die if you give up that apple.
You won't die if you give up Windows. And it's OK that nothing can replace it, because you didn't need it to begin with.
Anyway, let's leave the flawed analogies behind and focus on the real issues:
usability, utility, compatability with entertainment
I have usability and utility, arguably more than you do. The only reason I don't have 100% compatibility with entertainment is because people like you refuse to give up a different kind of apple -- in this case, high def TV, or the ability to purchase mainstream music and immediately download it.
I do have 100% compatibility with music CDs and standard DVDs.
Or is it the future you're afraid of giving up? The possibility of, say, subscribing to a music service, pay $x/mo and not actually own your music? Or of buying and downloading movies -- something that's never been done with a decent service?
Oh, I get it:
and all of the other stuff that people have been unable to convince me Linux or any of those other fringe (and they are fringe) programs have
List that stuff, and we'll talk. Otherwise, I'll assume you're talking about spyware, virus scanners, Windows Genuine Invalidation, and all this other stuff most people complain about all the time.
You have the freedom not to buy it, and people have chosen to exercise that right.
Alright, show me a decent laptop that doesn't come with Windows or OS X?
What about a pre-built desktop? They exist, but they're hard to come by. I generally build my own, for other reasons, but it certainly doesn't save money, even if you don't buy an OS with it.
according to me, Microsoft puts out a far better product in wide-range than these other ones, even through I'll admit that
What did Windows 95 actually add? The only thing I can think of is Win32, but really, even Microsoft seems to be admitting this isn't a lot -- they are giving away free upgrades to XP 64-bit to anyone with a legit 32-bit copy of XP Pro.
If this is really so useful, explain to me why no one uses manual emotiflags, like the one in this message?
Actually, that's not true. Some people do, and they might think it's cool for it to look better/different, but most of us don't, because it just isn't that useful. Text can already express everything we want to say in an email.
By patenting this particular technology, they are guaranteeing that it'll never succeed. And it's such a retarded idea that I don't want it to succeed.
I have removed Google toolbar multiple times from each one. When asked, nobody remembers wanting to install it.
I distinctly remember seeing the Google toolbar included in places like Shockware, and every time, there was an option to install it or not. Just because the user reflexively clicks next-next-next without ever reading or looking at "custom" options doesn't mean they weren't given a choice.
Better is to check what's in the archive before extracting it in case some inconsiderate fool has failed to put a top-level directory in it.
Which is why I always extract to a temporary directory first, then either rename that directory (if they're an inconsiderate fool) or move the top-level directory out of it (if they aren't an inconsiderate fool).
Personally, the habit I always get into is moving the tarball to wherever it makes sense to have it, then cd'ing to where I'm going to unpack it. I never use -C.
I agree, partly -- I don't like to try to figure out what things like gzip will do with actual filename arguments, and instead use gzip and bzip2 either as part of tar, or with stdin and stdout.
But still, why would you need cat for this? Just do:
So you're basing your comparison on whether the XML 'looks good' in unformatted text documents? Surely the ease of implementation or translation is more important than perceived readability?
Perhaps -- and yet, I can read the raw ODT XML and roll an implementation that does something useful, without ever touching the specs. I also was able to find a very simple Ruby implementation to do close to what I wanted. So, while I haven't tried writing XSL, I am currently working with a Ruby script that does what an XSL template might.
The Office XML, I couldn't do anything with, and I couldn't find any kind of decent implementation to work with.
Maybe it's just me, but I can't see how to work with Office XML without reading the spec, or one of the books that has already been written on the subject. OpenDocument was just intuitive, and that counts for a lot.
IE dominated the landscape for many years and it didn't seem to have a huge effect on the progress of the internet.
Many web standards -- the most obvious being CSS -- have been held back by missing, incomplete, or bastardized implementations in IE.
Arguably the creation of HTML created the most impact.
True enough. But imagine where we'd be if IE actually supported things like XHTML. (Actually, it might in IE7, I'll have to check that...) In other words, imagine where we'd be if we could use technologies available in 2006, instead of having to limit ourselves to what IE could do in 1996.
Proprietory technologies such as flash have also made a huge impact.
Yes... in making the Internet into something other than what it was intended to be, and something I don't like. The Internet is meant to be open, and you should be able to view a webpage from any browser that's bothered to implement the standards properly. Flash is not a standard.
In fact, look at the biggest use of Flash right now: YouTube. YouTube could've been implemented with, say, MPEGs, and have all the same functionality -- but actually have it with whatever plugin the user wants (maybe one that can actually go fullscreen?), on whatever platform that someone's bothered to implement it. But it seems that no one can agree on what format to support for embedded movies, so YouTube and the like decide to use Flash, which works well on Windows and OS X, and is only just beginning to have a decent Linux version -- and there still won't be a 64-bit version.
I place the blame for this directly with Microsoft. We've had SVG + JavaScript elsewhere for awhile, but it doesn't work on IE -- and that, plus existing support for embedded sounds and movies, really would duplicate what people use Flash for.
Same with CSS. And MS doesn't stop with crippling open standards -- remember Java?
With regards to CSS, its entire structure may well be wrong, but we wouldn't know, due to the politics and requirements of the parties involved. Would it be faster and more efficient if some parts were specified in a different way? Would it be more powerful as XML? etc. These questions are not likely to be answered.
The same thing is true of HTML, and many other technologies... For that matter, there are similar questions about Office XML. Why does that stop Microsoft from providing the same level of CSS support as everyone else?
What we have now is an ever bulging CSS spec that's trying to accomodate everyone and moving beyond its original purpose.
I don't know about that. What I do know is that, as a web developer, I have to design every site twice. Once in standard CSS that will work everywhere, and again in broken IE CSS. I can see why most web developers either do an IE-friendly version and stop, or avoid CSS altogether, knowing it'll be broken in IE. People still use tables because they're afraid of what IE will do to their CSS!
Where on a Mac do you have to look through every app? seems you have never used software update or mac update.
I did use Software Update -- only works for Apple products, certainly not for (say) VLC. A quick glance at Mac Update shows a huge list of software downloads, but certainly no update software to automatically check -- so in that case, I still have to go through every app and check it against the macupdate version.
Oh wait... there it is, an app to check your actual installed software against MacUpdate... That's actually pretty fucking buried, and it costs money.
Excellent comparison, one day you may want to install a new app thats not in ubuntu's repository
Not too likely. Most apps provide an Ubuntu version, at least -- so even if it's not in the main repository, they'll have their own repository or at least a.deb file.
that needs a different version of wxWindows than the one you have.
I'm guessing that by "different", you mean "newer".
You upgrade it and may break VLC.
You're assuming the same behavior as your libpng-dev example. VLC, on Ubuntu, doesn't need dev libraries, which means that you can have multiple versions of that library, if you really need to.
Assuming it's something not in the Ubuntu repository, it may make sense for people to package it that way. It seems much more likely that it'd simply depend on the library that's in the repository -- which, by the way, won't be updated by Ubuntu unless it already works with VLC.
I install the other app and it works independently of VLC. How much does it cost? 20 mb.
And if your way was the standard, it would be absolute hell on older machines. When you have 64 megs of RAM, you start looking at that 20 megs a bit differently -- especially considering it's a single app. VLC will take 20 megs of RAM anyway, but now VLC + some other app = 40 megs.
I haven't even mentioned cache coherency yet. The cache is 1 meg at most, so the more redundant crap you have, the slower your apps run, even if you're swimming in RAM.
And what does it buy you? Less chance for someone to screw up, in one particular way. Dependencies allow less chance to screw up in several other ways -- for instance, you may upgrade wxWindows and find it fixes what you thought was a bug in VLC. Of course, it might introduce a bug, but you'd have gotten that when you upgraded VLC anyway.
Since you used an example of a program that was not written in cocoa or carbon
Again, that distinction between system libraries and other libraries. Suppose Apple patches Cocoa or Carbon in such a way that new apps need the new version, and old apps need the old version? Is there even a provision for multiple versions of these libraries?
And this has happened. Just about every OS X upgrade breaks apps from a version or two ago, and introduces a ton of new stuff that means new apps won't work with a version or two ago of OS X. And somehow, users seem to cope.
All of this is theoretical, anyway. You have one example of a development library having some resolvable issue. Boo fuckin' hoo. Do you have any real examples, that actually impact users?
Because I haven't seen or heard anything about dependency hell for years, on Gentoo or Ubuntu.
let me show you my strawman. I have photoshop which runs natively with the existing libraries in OSX. I dont need to install every obscure package. For you to use photoshop you need to install wine. Fine.
Actually, I'd use the Gimp, but alright...
Oh, and it also runs in Windows. What makes you think Photoshop doesn't have a cross-platform library of their own? The only difference with the VLC example is, wxWindows is public and can be shared between apps, whereas Photoshop doesn't give us their cr
I don't know if you've worked in the real world, but that has never happened in my experience.
My experience: I wanted to be able to telecommute, which meant I needed to get into the fileserver and mailserver from home. I wanted to do this with a VPN. I basically said, "Give me the worst box you have, and I'll make it a dedicated OpenVPN server." The IT guy said "What if viruses and stuff comes in through the VPN?" I said "Fire me, then. I'll be firewalling it at both ends, and it only goes to my network anyway, so anything that happens is my fault.
And that worked, although the IT guy made some comment about "Well, they should fire ME if that happens..."
I've seen people fired for being malicious, but not for doing something dumb that caused damage. Not even once. And that's because places that value their people know they aren't robots.
If I valued my people, and didn't assume they were robots, I'd also assume that they are capable of learning, and that they're responsible adults.
It doesn't mean they have to be fired. It does mean that if their account is compromised, they should be held accountable for everything anyone did while using their account.
Unfortunately, you just don't see this very often. If someone steals your credit card, you're not liable. (I actually like that, because credit card security sucks, but if it was decent, I'd rather be held liable.) But elsewhere -- on Slashdot, if someone is spamming from your IP address, for instance, they just block your IP address until you clean up the mess -- you're responsible for your IP. (I was running a proxy for some friends, and I confronted the friends.) In MMOs, if your account is "hacked", it's up to you to get it back -- you might get some help from them, but characters in the game aren't likely to cut you any slack for it -- you chose a weak password, or whatever, so everything else that happened is your fault.
You are misunderstanding just a bit. The package manager isn't the problem, it's the distro. Specifically, dependencies.
Consider: RPM doesn't depend on packages, it depends on files. That is, an RPM file will depend on/usr/bin/mozilla, not "web browser package".
Most other systems work more sanely -- a package that needs a web browser can depend on "web browser" or even "Netscape-compatible browser", and those, in turn, could have lists of alternate packages that could fill that role. But even here, you have problems: Suppose a package depends on Firefox. Do we install the Ubuntu Firefox, the Debian Firefox, the RedHat Firefox, or the Gentoo Firefox? All of them could be slightly different, and have slightly different dependencies.
I know you're saying "they should be the same" -- but consider Apache. On OS X, it'd be handled by launchd. On most systems, it'd be an init script --/etc/init.d/apache -- but it might have different ways of running it, like "reload" vs "restart". On newer Ubuntu systems, it may be managed more directly by upstart. On a system by DJB, it might be handled by svscan. On Windows, it'd be a service.
So, after we upgrade Apache, we want to automatically restart it. How does our universal package manager know what to do? Each package will know what to do -- on the distro it was designed for.
And that's assuming coherent packages. For instance, on Gentoo, support for various things is controlled via USE flags -- for instance, mod_ssl might be part of the Apache package, assuming you have the "crypt" USE flag enabled. On Ubuntu, it'd probably be a separate package that depends on Apache. And you see this kind of thing all the time -- how do we split things into packages? What if I have a package that depends on xmms-plugins, but that's included in xmms?
Now, if what you're talking about is a way to install packages from another system, we can sort of do that. Gentoo does it a lot -- it'll download an RPM or a DEB, unpack it into its files, and do some custom stuff to them. But you have to do that manually for every package -- figure out what it depends on -- which is why most other distros will just repackage it for you, unless you're going to end up doing it yourself manually.
Because, you see, it's not the package type or the file format. What you're asking is roughly equivalent to asking Slashdot to combine with Wikipedia.
One big difference is, last I checked, rpms had size limitations that debs don't. So, I just like the deb format better.
But, we're really talking about apt vs yum. From what I was reading, the way yum/rpm handles dependencies is through files. That is, a package lists the files that it depends on, and the package manager finds out what packages provide those files.
On the other hand, apt, like most sane package managers (Gentoo's Emerge is another one), depends on other packages. And, there are all kinds of things you can do with them, including virtual packages, allowing for multiple alternate dependencies. For example, an RPM file that needs a web browser installed -- say, to display documentation -- might depend on/usr/bin/mozilla. A deb would depend on "web browser" or something, which could be satisfied by Mozilla, Firefox, Konqueror, lynx, links, w3m, Opera, even Amaya. Of course, there would be a default to install (probably Firefox or Konqueror), but if you already had a different browser installed, that would work, too.
This also means that a package can depend on a specific version of another package, or have a minimum version required.
So, that's a pretty big fundamental difference, and it'd take a lot of thinking and probably a lot of deep, incompatible changes to make RPM come anywhere close.
Besides, apt is more popular at the moment, and it's used by Ubuntu, which is more popular at the moment. That means there are tons of really nice frontends for it, everyone's using it, everyone knows best practices for it, and so on. And, since it's open source, that also means everyone's developing it when it needs to be developed -- all kinds of people that might be interested in helping with RPM are already using Ubuntu and Apt, so they'd rather just add the feature to Apt.
I cannot think of a single thing that rpm/yum does that apt/dpkg doesn't. I've already listed something that apt/dpkg does well, that rpm/yum might possibly be able to do with a really ugly hack.
Think of it this way: FreeDOS could be improved. Linux could be improved as well. Which would you rather start with to make a modern OS?
i used debian linux for ages and then one day i said fuck dependency hell, im getting a mac.
That seems downright retarded of you. You had a Debian bug, and rather than try one of the hundreds of other distros out there, you just go straight to a Mac? I haven't run into any problems like this on Ubuntu...
There is no technical reason why linux should have dependency hell.
True, it doesn't. It has package managers, and there is a technical reason for that.
Unlike OSX and windows where installing is either drag and drop or a double click, in linux you need to know
apt-get. Or one of the many GUI frontends, which end up being far quicker and easier than any Windows or Mac install I've ever seen.
I stopped using linux when after finally getting through the libc vs glibc mess, only to encounter the wonder that is libpng2 vs libpng3. fuck you libpng. every app used a different version and since they were two packages which had the EXACT SAME FUCKING FILES IN THE SAME FUCKING PLACE, you cant install both at the same time.
As mentioned elsewhere, these are the devel files. If you're compiling software on your own, then yes, you need to know how to deal with these. Worst case, you can head over to libpng.org and download the version needed for whatever you're compiling.
And yes, compiling custom software will require you to deal with strange stuff like how to force an app to use specific header files, even if they aren't where the app expects them.
in had to remoce libpng2 and all the apps the depend on it then install libpng3 install the app i wanted to use. When i was done I HAD TO FUCKING UNDO EVERYTHING and reinstall libpng to use my other apps.
Hmm. Could you remember which apps these were, which relied on development libraries?
More importantly, did you even try to get support before you threw your hands up and left?
Even with GUI wrappers, software installation and uninstallation in linux is a nightmare.
Not as much as software maintenance on OS X. Consider: I can do "apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade", or I can follow the GUI prompts when Ubuntu automatically finds updates for me. You have to spend a couple hours looking through every single app you have installed, comparing the version you have with the version online.
Its not hard to copy OSX, where a certain version of distro X is guaranteed to have certain base libraries (kde, gnome, etc) in a certain place. If you unzip gimp for example, no dependencies needed everything no in the base is in the package.
Great, thanks, now every single app will take 10 times as long to download and use 10 times as much disk space and RAM. We'd never have gotten out of the "stone ages" of an efficient OS if it wasn't for you! Thanks for thinking of something so new and non-obvious that every Linux developer has already thought of it (and rejected it) before you!
I am not making this up, by the way. VLC's Universal Binary for OS X is a solid 22.7 megs. The VLC deb file (Ubuntu, i386) is 1.1 megs, because the rest of it is in shared libraries -- most of which I'd already have.
Now, I realize a mere 21.6 megs of wasted bandwidth and disk space isn't worth crying over, but why would you waste it when you don't have to?
And anyway, what's stopping you? Roll your own distro the way you want it and see how far you get.
Don't have the time? Get someone else to. Organize. Maybe try a post to Slashdot that isn't immediately (and rightly) modded Flamebait.
Bloat is one reason for not wanting apps to store things in their own folders. Not just disk space, but RAM usage. And yes, people are still running Linux on a 4 gig drive and installing multiple applications -- for that matter, if you are using Linux, you're almost certainly using "multiple applications" in the form of multiple daemons running at boot.
There's also download time. Suppose a dependency is updated -- you don't have to re-download every single app that uses zlib to get the zlib update. And if you already have a bunch of libraries, downloading a new app takes less time. The SVN snapshot of VLC 0.8.6 for i386 is a little over a megabyte. Compare that to the 0.8.6 download for Macs -- the Universal Binary is 22.7 megs. Now, it may well add up to just as much when you count the libraries, but then, it might not, especially if you already have, say, mplayer or totem installed. And not all of the libraries are updated every VLC update, which means I get to download about a megabyte, and you download 22.7 megs.
Speaking of updating, it also means that you can get updates -- including security patches -- to just a library, and not have to patch everything that uses that library. A very simple example: Suppose OpenSSL has a critical security flaw. My package manager will automatically install a new version of OpenSSL, and like magic, my SSH daemon, my web server, my IMAP server, anything on the box that uses SSL will have that flaw fixed.
And it all happens automatically. On Windows, you have Microsoft Update, which updates Windows and some Microsoft apps, like Windows Media Player, Internet Exploder, and Office. On OS X, you have Software Update, which updates OS X, iTunes, QuickTime, and some other Apple apps. On Linux, you have a package manager, which updates every single program that's installed on your computer. I'd estimate that over 50% of the apps I use every day on my Mac are third-party apps, and maybe 3 or 4 of them check for updates automatically -- the rest, I have to check myself. To do the equivalent of an "apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade" (or equivalent GUI) on a Windows or Mac machine would probably take a solid couple of hours of hunting down the download sites of every single program I have, opening the program, checking my version of the program against the latest download available... On Ubuntu, I just wait for there to be an icon in the system tray telling me I need to update.
Dependencies are not an issue on Linux. They just aren't. Every now and then you have a weird issue, but generally it's fixed by the distribution the same day. We have coherent distributions, and even most third-party stuff Just Works out of the box. We have a way of actually maintaining separate versions of a shared library, so even in the event that App1 depends on LibFoo verison 1, and App2 depends on LibFoo version 2, we can simply have both versions of LibFoo installed -- automatically, as dependencies, by the package manager. Eventually, App1 will be updated to support LibFoov2, and when that happens, LibFoov1 will automatically be uninstalled.
And you're kidding yourself if you think that dependency problems don't exist on other OSes -- you'd be amazed at the problems getting stuff to work on different versions of MacOS. Dependency problems with the OS itself!
As for portability, I'm not sure what you mean here. If I write an app that depends on, say, SDL, but I don't ship it with SDL, it can actually be more portable, because different Linux distros might have different versions of SDL. It's true, they might break compatibility with me, but they generally don't, and they might also workaround some bug that I'd certainly have hit if I insisted on using my own SDL.
There's also security. How do you install a Windows program from the Internet? Browse to a website and download an EXE? Do you have any clue how ridiculously insecure that is?
When I install a Linux program, I generally install it through the package man
What you're forgetting is that Sony has deliberately crippled Linux, and so we may be motivated to do more than just get it to run. We may be motivated to actually try to get some 3D acceleration.
I'm sorry you have to justify your next-get gaming addiction this way... What makes you think Dx10 games won't have even more DRM than media content currently does? SafeDisc, SecuROM and the like seem about as evil and rootkit-ish as anything the music industry has done.
Just don't buy Vista. Buy good, OpenGL games, and when XP starts to show its age, use Linux or OS X. And yes, there are good OpenGL games out there.
One big reason YouTube is popular is because it is "Instant-On." No waiting for it to download. Generally no waiting for "buffering."
I do end up having to wait for buffering -- but this is not specific to YouTube, and I still wish YouTube didn't exist. Existing formats, like mpegs, are well supported pretty much everywhere Flash is, and many places Flash is not.
But at any rate, I think you're missing the point. Remember:
the very same p2p-style networks that 'threatened' legitimate business may be the basis for most video-on-demand services.
This doesn't seem at all related to YouTube. Instead, it seems more like a full-length movie in good quality -- more data than you can stream (for now) anyway.
ISPs drastically limit upload.
This isn't as bad as you think it is. You can prove it to yourself by connecting to any reasonably popular torrent -- it will saturate your download speed, and there aren't any major corporations doing the seeding.
Plus, what benefit do I have for letting them use my upload? With most broadband connections, saturating the upload makes browsing at the same time slow with high latency.
I would suggest that they could give you some sort of price break or benefit for you uploading -- and why do you saturate your upload? Throttle it back by 5-10k, just like you do with your download -- or better, just use QoS -- and you can browse again.
I realize I'm getting here late, but I may as well give it a shot:
As far as we can tell, there's no way to Cut a file in Finder.... The Finder does make it relatively easy to perform drag-and-drop moves, but there are times when that can be awkward, especially on smaller-screen Macs. In that case, being able to cut a file in one window, navigate to another window, and paste the file there is a handy alternative.
It's a bit clunky, but from what I can tell, even on a smaller-screen Mac:
Drag it to the Dock, next to the trash. This is like "cut".
Navigate to where you want to paste it.
Hold the Command (Apple) key and drag it from the Dock to where you want it. This is like "paste".
This strikes me as far more intuitive than cut/paste, although it's annoying to have to use the mouse, and dropping it next to the trash (as opposed to IN the trash) can be hard when you have a full-ish Dock.
On the other hand, I don't ever use cut/paste, because that strikes me as much worse. With text, when I "cut", the text disappears into the clipboard. With files, when I "cut", the file changes a different color to let me know what file it was -- but it stays put until I "paste". It also seems a lot more dangerous to forget what you "cut" in the first place than it would be with text -- you could end up trying to paste a movie to a floppy disk.
changes you make (such as file renames) don't always dynamically update already open Windows. If at all possible, Apple should make the Finder dynamically update 100% of the time.
I have never noticed these changes not dynamically update on a Tiger machine. I wish they would be more specific about where it doesn't update.
The process of renaming files is highly mouse-centric on the Mac. There's no F2 option (as there is on Windows) that lets you select the file and press F2 to expose the filename-editing mode.
This guy apparently didn't try. Instead of F2, you press enter -- it does exactly the same thing.
The annoying thing is, I'm used to pressing enter to launch the file or app -- this is now command+o.
Secondary Mouse Button. My number one pet peeve is that Macintosh notebook computers only have one mouse button.
Seconded. I actually want three, but I could live with two -- at least then I could chord them for a third button on Linux.
Yes, I know about cmd+click and holding the button down. It's not the same.
I actually do most of my mousing from the touchpad, because I'd rather not have to unplug the mouse from my desktop computer and take it with me, and because I've learned to use the keyboard for so much. So actually, the Mighty Mouse -- and for that matter, any USB mouse -- is pretty useless for me on my Powerbook.
Now, for a couple of things that weren't mentioned:
Open up. I'd love it if OS X became completely open source. And really, why not? Apple is supposedly a hardware company -- if their hardware really is that much better (and I like a lot of that hardware), they should be willing to open up their software completely. If they are really a software company, then they should at least support running OS X on non-Apple hardware, even if they still sell it.
Provide an officially supported package manager. The.app folders take up more space than including actually shared libraries, and a package manager makes it sane to try to manage dependencies like that. Also, it'd be nice if "Software Update" worked for all the software on my Mac, not just Apple products.
Make it themable. I don't particularly care right now, but it would be nice if both the brushed metal and the plastic-y interfaces could have custom skins.
Support more customizable power modes. When I close the lid, it should immediately sleep, not suspend-to-both -- the disk should be parked, after all, I ca
Slashdot Mirror
in a puff of Steam.
I've actually been all for Steam, but only because it's generally meant good things so far. If they actually start making these inescapable -- putting them in the middle of classic maps like Dust -- well, under ordinary circumstances, no one would upgrade, but this is Steam, so you don't have that choice.
Guess I should've listened to "power corrupts"...
That kind of makes sense, but I should point out that it really doesn't take much for them to go from "Your site can't exist for the sole purpose of doing this illegal thing," to "Your site is guilty of copyright infringement unless you take steps to prevent it."
And at that point, every general-purpose tool suffers. Google should not have to implement a "SafeSearch"-like feature to hide suspected copyrighted material -- and even if it did, Google would be useless without the ability to disable such a feature.
All very well and good, but you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask "How is DX10 cool", I asked "How is it different?"
Is it that current "paging"-like behavior is within a single process, rather than between multiple processes?
Insert "China" in that sentence. Or "Iraq".
But then, some politicians simply need their lives ended so someone else can see it.
Someone else has pointed out that the Win32 API was available on Win3.1.
So what's wrong with an optional extension?
Ah, true. But then, Windows 3.1 actually ran in 16 megs. Win98 probably used 16 megs just for the OS.
Cheapshots aside, according to Wikipedia, Win3.1 supports 386 Enhanced Mode:
I don't know if that does anything about the 16 meg limit, but at the time, MS recommended 8 megs of RAM for "optimal" performance. So really, it's kind of like how XP 64-bit now supports more than 4 gigs of RAM, but notice how people aren't exactly flocking to it -- frankly, my 2 gigs is more than enough for now.
And how is that different than maximizing the Program Manager? I mean, there are some nice, cosmetic things, but really...
Which was on the Plato -- and I believe there was a Win32 version that ran on Win3.1.
I mean, there were improvements, but nothing really huge. Kind of like Vista right now.
From what I can tell, this is already happening. We already have all the textures in main memory. Unused textures fall out of GPU memory to make way for more textures from main memory, but they're all still in main memory.
Or is the idea here that you can have less main memory, because it'll actually remove stuff from main memory when it goes to the card, and read it back from the card when it falls out of that card? In this case, I think it'd be faster and cheaper to buy another half gig of system RAM than to buy Windows.
Cute analogy, but not entirely accurate.
I've got one for you: One fruit stand sells you apples and charges you $1000/apple.
Another fruit stand sells you grapefruits, and is charging $5000/grapefruit. They have a couple of loyal customers, who've developed their own culture around how they're not eating apples, and how a grapefruit really is worth so much more than an apple, and how much better they are than everyone else.
Most people go straight to the store selling apples (which is Microsoft in our story), occasionally looking wistfully at the grapefruit stand (Apple), wishing they could afford to get one and still get an apple, but unwilling to give that apple up, even when the apple stand raises prices to $2000/apple, and the grapefruit stand lowers them to $2500/grapefruit. I mean, $500 is a lot, and is a grapefruit really that much better than an apple? What if I don't like the grapefruit? It's an acquired taste, after all...
There's also a small farm nearby. It grows oranges, bananas, grapes, pineapples, strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, mulberries, watermelons, mangos, dates, pomegranites... It is open to the public, and you can just walk in and grab one. All kinds of people are walking in, eating fruit, watering and tending the orchard, planting seeds.
Occasionally, you see someone new walk in and grab an orange -- it can't hurt, right? -- while clutching their apple or grapefruit close, as if afraid that the people planting seeds will touch it with their dirty hands.
Now, looking at this situation, I can understand that an apple is unique, and a grapefruit is unique. And sometimes, you've just got to have one, and when that happens, it does seem unfair that you have to pay thousands of dollars for a piece of fruit. But I wonder why more people don't just walk into the orchard/farm (Linux) and fill up a basket of free fruit.
Because get this: You don't really need an apple. There's a lot of propaganda that says you do -- an apple a day keeps the doctor away, right? But you won't die if you give up that apple.
You won't die if you give up Windows. And it's OK that nothing can replace it, because you didn't need it to begin with.
Anyway, let's leave the flawed analogies behind and focus on the real issues:
I have usability and utility, arguably more than you do. The only reason I don't have 100% compatibility with entertainment is because people like you refuse to give up a different kind of apple -- in this case, high def TV, or the ability to purchase mainstream music and immediately download it.
I do have 100% compatibility with music CDs and standard DVDs.
Or is it the future you're afraid of giving up? The possibility of, say, subscribing to a music service, pay $x/mo and not actually own your music? Or of buying and downloading movies -- something that's never been done with a decent service?
Oh, I get it:
List that stuff, and we'll talk. Otherwise, I'll assume you're talking about spyware, virus scanners, Windows Genuine Invalidation, and all this other stuff most people complain about all the time.
Alright, show me a decent laptop that doesn't come with Windows or OS X?
What about a pre-built desktop? They exist, but they're hard to come by. I generally build my own, for other reasons, but it certainly doesn't save money, even if you don't buy an OS with it.
What did Windows 95 actually add? The only thing I can think of is Win32, but really, even Microsoft seems to be admitting this isn't a lot -- they are giving away free upgrades to XP 64-bit to anyone with a legit 32-bit copy of XP Pro.
If this is really so useful, explain to me why no one uses manual emotiflags, like the one in this message?
Actually, that's not true. Some people do, and they might think it's cool for it to look better/different, but most of us don't, because it just isn't that useful. Text can already express everything we want to say in an email.
By patenting this particular technology, they are guaranteeing that it'll never succeed. And it's such a retarded idea that I don't want it to succeed.
I distinctly remember seeing the Google toolbar included in places like Shockware, and every time, there was an option to install it or not. Just because the user reflexively clicks next-next-next without ever reading or looking at "custom" options doesn't mean they weren't given a choice.
Which is why I always extract to a temporary directory first, then either rename that directory (if they're an inconsiderate fool) or move the top-level directory out of it (if they aren't an inconsiderate fool).
Personally, the habit I always get into is moving the tarball to wherever it makes sense to have it, then cd'ing to where I'm going to unpack it. I never use -C.
I agree, partly -- I don't like to try to figure out what things like gzip will do with actual filename arguments, and instead use gzip and bzip2 either as part of tar, or with stdin and stdout.
But still, why would you need cat for this? Just do:
gzip < file > file.gz
Perhaps -- and yet, I can read the raw ODT XML and roll an implementation that does something useful, without ever touching the specs. I also was able to find a very simple Ruby implementation to do close to what I wanted. So, while I haven't tried writing XSL, I am currently working with a Ruby script that does what an XSL template might.
The Office XML, I couldn't do anything with, and I couldn't find any kind of decent implementation to work with.
Maybe it's just me, but I can't see how to work with Office XML without reading the spec, or one of the books that has already been written on the subject. OpenDocument was just intuitive, and that counts for a lot.
Many web standards -- the most obvious being CSS -- have been held back by missing, incomplete, or bastardized implementations in IE.
True enough. But imagine where we'd be if IE actually supported things like XHTML. (Actually, it might in IE7, I'll have to check that...) In other words, imagine where we'd be if we could use technologies available in 2006, instead of having to limit ourselves to what IE could do in 1996.
Yes... in making the Internet into something other than what it was intended to be, and something I don't like. The Internet is meant to be open, and you should be able to view a webpage from any browser that's bothered to implement the standards properly. Flash is not a standard.
In fact, look at the biggest use of Flash right now: YouTube. YouTube could've been implemented with, say, MPEGs, and have all the same functionality -- but actually have it with whatever plugin the user wants (maybe one that can actually go fullscreen?), on whatever platform that someone's bothered to implement it. But it seems that no one can agree on what format to support for embedded movies, so YouTube and the like decide to use Flash, which works well on Windows and OS X, and is only just beginning to have a decent Linux version -- and there still won't be a 64-bit version.
I place the blame for this directly with Microsoft. We've had SVG + JavaScript elsewhere for awhile, but it doesn't work on IE -- and that, plus existing support for embedded sounds and movies, really would duplicate what people use Flash for.
Same with CSS. And MS doesn't stop with crippling open standards -- remember Java?
The same thing is true of HTML, and many other technologies... For that matter, there are similar questions about Office XML. Why does that stop Microsoft from providing the same level of CSS support as everyone else?
I don't know about that. What I do know is that, as a web developer, I have to design every site twice. Once in standard CSS that will work everywhere, and again in broken IE CSS. I can see why most web developers either do an IE-friendly version and stop, or avoid CSS altogether, knowing it'll be broken in IE. People still use tables because they're afraid of what IE will do to their CSS!
I did use Software Update -- only works for Apple products, certainly not for (say) VLC. A quick glance at Mac Update shows a huge list of software downloads, but certainly no update software to automatically check -- so in that case, I still have to go through every app and check it against the macupdate version.
Oh wait... there it is, an app to check your actual installed software against MacUpdate... That's actually pretty fucking buried, and it costs money.
Not too likely. Most apps provide an Ubuntu version, at least -- so even if it's not in the main repository, they'll have their own repository or at least a .deb file.
I'm guessing that by "different", you mean "newer".
You're assuming the same behavior as your libpng-dev example. VLC, on Ubuntu, doesn't need dev libraries, which means that you can have multiple versions of that library, if you really need to.
Assuming it's something not in the Ubuntu repository, it may make sense for people to package it that way. It seems much more likely that it'd simply depend on the library that's in the repository -- which, by the way, won't be updated by Ubuntu unless it already works with VLC.
And if your way was the standard, it would be absolute hell on older machines. When you have 64 megs of RAM, you start looking at that 20 megs a bit differently -- especially considering it's a single app. VLC will take 20 megs of RAM anyway, but now VLC + some other app = 40 megs.
I haven't even mentioned cache coherency yet. The cache is 1 meg at most, so the more redundant crap you have, the slower your apps run, even if you're swimming in RAM.
And what does it buy you? Less chance for someone to screw up, in one particular way. Dependencies allow less chance to screw up in several other ways -- for instance, you may upgrade wxWindows and find it fixes what you thought was a bug in VLC. Of course, it might introduce a bug, but you'd have gotten that when you upgraded VLC anyway.
Again, that distinction between system libraries and other libraries. Suppose Apple patches Cocoa or Carbon in such a way that new apps need the new version, and old apps need the old version? Is there even a provision for multiple versions of these libraries?
And this has happened. Just about every OS X upgrade breaks apps from a version or two ago, and introduces a ton of new stuff that means new apps won't work with a version or two ago of OS X. And somehow, users seem to cope.
All of this is theoretical, anyway. You have one example of a development library having some resolvable issue. Boo fuckin' hoo. Do you have any real examples, that actually impact users?
Because I haven't seen or heard anything about dependency hell for years, on Gentoo or Ubuntu.
Actually, I'd use the Gimp, but alright...
Oh, and it also runs in Windows. What makes you think Photoshop doesn't have a cross-platform library of their own? The only difference with the VLC example is, wxWindows is public and can be shared between apps, whereas Photoshop doesn't give us their cr
My experience: I wanted to be able to telecommute, which meant I needed to get into the fileserver and mailserver from home. I wanted to do this with a VPN. I basically said, "Give me the worst box you have, and I'll make it a dedicated OpenVPN server." The IT guy said "What if viruses and stuff comes in through the VPN?" I said "Fire me, then. I'll be firewalling it at both ends, and it only goes to my network anyway, so anything that happens is my fault.
And that worked, although the IT guy made some comment about "Well, they should fire ME if that happens..."
If I valued my people, and didn't assume they were robots, I'd also assume that they are capable of learning, and that they're responsible adults.
It doesn't mean they have to be fired. It does mean that if their account is compromised, they should be held accountable for everything anyone did while using their account.
Unfortunately, you just don't see this very often. If someone steals your credit card, you're not liable. (I actually like that, because credit card security sucks, but if it was decent, I'd rather be held liable.) But elsewhere -- on Slashdot, if someone is spamming from your IP address, for instance, they just block your IP address until you clean up the mess -- you're responsible for your IP. (I was running a proxy for some friends, and I confronted the friends.) In MMOs, if your account is "hacked", it's up to you to get it back -- you might get some help from them, but characters in the game aren't likely to cut you any slack for it -- you chose a weak password, or whatever, so everything else that happened is your fault.
You are misunderstanding just a bit. The package manager isn't the problem, it's the distro. Specifically, dependencies.
/usr/bin/mozilla, not "web browser package".
/etc/init.d/apache -- but it might have different ways of running it, like "reload" vs "restart". On newer Ubuntu systems, it may be managed more directly by upstart. On a system by DJB, it might be handled by svscan. On Windows, it'd be a service.
Consider: RPM doesn't depend on packages, it depends on files. That is, an RPM file will depend on
Most other systems work more sanely -- a package that needs a web browser can depend on "web browser" or even "Netscape-compatible browser", and those, in turn, could have lists of alternate packages that could fill that role. But even here, you have problems: Suppose a package depends on Firefox. Do we install the Ubuntu Firefox, the Debian Firefox, the RedHat Firefox, or the Gentoo Firefox? All of them could be slightly different, and have slightly different dependencies.
I know you're saying "they should be the same" -- but consider Apache. On OS X, it'd be handled by launchd. On most systems, it'd be an init script --
So, after we upgrade Apache, we want to automatically restart it. How does our universal package manager know what to do? Each package will know what to do -- on the distro it was designed for.
And that's assuming coherent packages. For instance, on Gentoo, support for various things is controlled via USE flags -- for instance, mod_ssl might be part of the Apache package, assuming you have the "crypt" USE flag enabled. On Ubuntu, it'd probably be a separate package that depends on Apache. And you see this kind of thing all the time -- how do we split things into packages? What if I have a package that depends on xmms-plugins, but that's included in xmms?
Now, if what you're talking about is a way to install packages from another system, we can sort of do that. Gentoo does it a lot -- it'll download an RPM or a DEB, unpack it into its files, and do some custom stuff to them. But you have to do that manually for every package -- figure out what it depends on -- which is why most other distros will just repackage it for you, unless you're going to end up doing it yourself manually.
Because, you see, it's not the package type or the file format. What you're asking is roughly equivalent to asking Slashdot to combine with Wikipedia.
It's not universal, but neither is MSI. MSI works under Microsoft "distributions". Deb files work under apt/dpkg distros.
One big difference is, last I checked, rpms had size limitations that debs don't. So, I just like the deb format better.
/usr/bin/mozilla. A deb would depend on "web browser" or something, which could be satisfied by Mozilla, Firefox, Konqueror, lynx, links, w3m, Opera, even Amaya. Of course, there would be a default to install (probably Firefox or Konqueror), but if you already had a different browser installed, that would work, too.
But, we're really talking about apt vs yum. From what I was reading, the way yum/rpm handles dependencies is through files. That is, a package lists the files that it depends on, and the package manager finds out what packages provide those files.
On the other hand, apt, like most sane package managers (Gentoo's Emerge is another one), depends on other packages. And, there are all kinds of things you can do with them, including virtual packages, allowing for multiple alternate dependencies. For example, an RPM file that needs a web browser installed -- say, to display documentation -- might depend on
This also means that a package can depend on a specific version of another package, or have a minimum version required.
So, that's a pretty big fundamental difference, and it'd take a lot of thinking and probably a lot of deep, incompatible changes to make RPM come anywhere close.
Besides, apt is more popular at the moment, and it's used by Ubuntu, which is more popular at the moment. That means there are tons of really nice frontends for it, everyone's using it, everyone knows best practices for it, and so on. And, since it's open source, that also means everyone's developing it when it needs to be developed -- all kinds of people that might be interested in helping with RPM are already using Ubuntu and Apt, so they'd rather just add the feature to Apt.
I cannot think of a single thing that rpm/yum does that apt/dpkg doesn't. I've already listed something that apt/dpkg does well, that rpm/yum might possibly be able to do with a really ugly hack.
Think of it this way: FreeDOS could be improved. Linux could be improved as well. Which would you rather start with to make a modern OS?
That seems downright retarded of you. You had a Debian bug, and rather than try one of the hundreds of other distros out there, you just go straight to a Mac? I haven't run into any problems like this on Ubuntu...
True, it doesn't. It has package managers, and there is a technical reason for that.
apt-get. Or one of the many GUI frontends, which end up being far quicker and easier than any Windows or Mac install I've ever seen.
As mentioned elsewhere, these are the devel files. If you're compiling software on your own, then yes, you need to know how to deal with these. Worst case, you can head over to libpng.org and download the version needed for whatever you're compiling.
And yes, compiling custom software will require you to deal with strange stuff like how to force an app to use specific header files, even if they aren't where the app expects them.
Hmm. Could you remember which apps these were, which relied on development libraries?
More importantly, did you even try to get support before you threw your hands up and left?
Not as much as software maintenance on OS X. Consider: I can do "apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade", or I can follow the GUI prompts when Ubuntu automatically finds updates for me. You have to spend a couple hours looking through every single app you have installed, comparing the version you have with the version online.
Great, thanks, now every single app will take 10 times as long to download and use 10 times as much disk space and RAM. We'd never have gotten out of the "stone ages" of an efficient OS if it wasn't for you! Thanks for thinking of something so new and non-obvious that every Linux developer has already thought of it (and rejected it) before you!
I am not making this up, by the way. VLC's Universal Binary for OS X is a solid 22.7 megs. The VLC deb file (Ubuntu, i386) is 1.1 megs, because the rest of it is in shared libraries -- most of which I'd already have.
Now, I realize a mere 21.6 megs of wasted bandwidth and disk space isn't worth crying over, but why would you waste it when you don't have to?
And anyway, what's stopping you? Roll your own distro the way you want it and see how far you get.
Don't have the time? Get someone else to. Organize. Maybe try a post to Slashdot that isn't immediately (and rightly) modded Flamebait.
But seriously...
Bloat is one reason for not wanting apps to store things in their own folders. Not just disk space, but RAM usage. And yes, people are still running Linux on a 4 gig drive and installing multiple applications -- for that matter, if you are using Linux, you're almost certainly using "multiple applications" in the form of multiple daemons running at boot.
There's also download time. Suppose a dependency is updated -- you don't have to re-download every single app that uses zlib to get the zlib update. And if you already have a bunch of libraries, downloading a new app takes less time. The SVN snapshot of VLC 0.8.6 for i386 is a little over a megabyte. Compare that to the 0.8.6 download for Macs -- the Universal Binary is 22.7 megs. Now, it may well add up to just as much when you count the libraries, but then, it might not, especially if you already have, say, mplayer or totem installed. And not all of the libraries are updated every VLC update, which means I get to download about a megabyte, and you download 22.7 megs.
Speaking of updating, it also means that you can get updates -- including security patches -- to just a library, and not have to patch everything that uses that library. A very simple example: Suppose OpenSSL has a critical security flaw. My package manager will automatically install a new version of OpenSSL, and like magic, my SSH daemon, my web server, my IMAP server, anything on the box that uses SSL will have that flaw fixed.
And it all happens automatically. On Windows, you have Microsoft Update, which updates Windows and some Microsoft apps, like Windows Media Player, Internet Exploder, and Office. On OS X, you have Software Update, which updates OS X, iTunes, QuickTime, and some other Apple apps. On Linux, you have a package manager, which updates every single program that's installed on your computer. I'd estimate that over 50% of the apps I use every day on my Mac are third-party apps, and maybe 3 or 4 of them check for updates automatically -- the rest, I have to check myself. To do the equivalent of an "apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade" (or equivalent GUI) on a Windows or Mac machine would probably take a solid couple of hours of hunting down the download sites of every single program I have, opening the program, checking my version of the program against the latest download available... On Ubuntu, I just wait for there to be an icon in the system tray telling me I need to update.
Dependencies are not an issue on Linux. They just aren't. Every now and then you have a weird issue, but generally it's fixed by the distribution the same day. We have coherent distributions, and even most third-party stuff Just Works out of the box. We have a way of actually maintaining separate versions of a shared library, so even in the event that App1 depends on LibFoo verison 1, and App2 depends on LibFoo version 2, we can simply have both versions of LibFoo installed -- automatically, as dependencies, by the package manager. Eventually, App1 will be updated to support LibFoov2, and when that happens, LibFoov1 will automatically be uninstalled.
And you're kidding yourself if you think that dependency problems don't exist on other OSes -- you'd be amazed at the problems getting stuff to work on different versions of MacOS. Dependency problems with the OS itself!
As for portability, I'm not sure what you mean here. If I write an app that depends on, say, SDL, but I don't ship it with SDL, it can actually be more portable, because different Linux distros might have different versions of SDL. It's true, they might break compatibility with me, but they generally don't, and they might also workaround some bug that I'd certainly have hit if I insisted on using my own SDL.
There's also security. How do you install a Windows program from the Internet? Browse to a website and download an EXE? Do you have any clue how ridiculously insecure that is?
When I install a Linux program, I generally install it through the package man
What you're forgetting is that Sony has deliberately crippled Linux, and so we may be motivated to do more than just get it to run. We may be motivated to actually try to get some 3D acceleration.
I'm sorry you have to justify your next-get gaming addiction this way... What makes you think Dx10 games won't have even more DRM than media content currently does? SafeDisc, SecuROM and the like seem about as evil and rootkit-ish as anything the music industry has done.
Just don't buy Vista. Buy good, OpenGL games, and when XP starts to show its age, use Linux or OS X. And yes, there are good OpenGL games out there.
I do end up having to wait for buffering -- but this is not specific to YouTube, and I still wish YouTube didn't exist. Existing formats, like mpegs, are well supported pretty much everywhere Flash is, and many places Flash is not.
But at any rate, I think you're missing the point. Remember:
This doesn't seem at all related to YouTube. Instead, it seems more like a full-length movie in good quality -- more data than you can stream (for now) anyway.
This isn't as bad as you think it is. You can prove it to yourself by connecting to any reasonably popular torrent -- it will saturate your download speed, and there aren't any major corporations doing the seeding.
I would suggest that they could give you some sort of price break or benefit for you uploading -- and why do you saturate your upload? Throttle it back by 5-10k, just like you do with your download -- or better, just use QoS -- and you can browse again.
I realize I'm getting here late, but I may as well give it a shot:
It's a bit clunky, but from what I can tell, even on a smaller-screen Mac:
This strikes me as far more intuitive than cut/paste, although it's annoying to have to use the mouse, and dropping it next to the trash (as opposed to IN the trash) can be hard when you have a full-ish Dock.
On the other hand, I don't ever use cut/paste, because that strikes me as much worse. With text, when I "cut", the text disappears into the clipboard. With files, when I "cut", the file changes a different color to let me know what file it was -- but it stays put until I "paste". It also seems a lot more dangerous to forget what you "cut" in the first place than it would be with text -- you could end up trying to paste a movie to a floppy disk.
I have never noticed these changes not dynamically update on a Tiger machine. I wish they would be more specific about where it doesn't update.
This guy apparently didn't try. Instead of F2, you press enter -- it does exactly the same thing.
The annoying thing is, I'm used to pressing enter to launch the file or app -- this is now command+o.
Seconded. I actually want three, but I could live with two -- at least then I could chord them for a third button on Linux.
Yes, I know about cmd+click and holding the button down. It's not the same.
I actually do most of my mousing from the touchpad, because I'd rather not have to unplug the mouse from my desktop computer and take it with me, and because I've learned to use the keyboard for so much. So actually, the Mighty Mouse -- and for that matter, any USB mouse -- is pretty useless for me on my Powerbook.
Now, for a couple of things that weren't mentioned: