Pardon my scepticism, but a bunch of people sitting around pontificating about Apple won't affect Steve's vision.
Um...was that the goal? Quite frankly, he's enough that his own people have trouble affecting Steve's "vision," I'll guarantee these people won't and aren't trying.
This is at least more worthwhile than the rest of Mac rumor sites - these people kind of know what the hell they're talking about.
Well they have me left - I like unix, I like functional interfaces, I don't want to screw with drivers constantly, and I need compatibility with the rest of the world. Got any suggestions aside from Apple?
Yeah, I'm sorry, I threw back an ad hominem attack -- but it felt really good to do so.
Well that's good, I'm glad.
And about the 1st amendment not guaranteeing the right to an audience, that still applies here. Hang up the phone.
Not the way the law works. I have the right to generally ban people from my property as a blanket. What makes you think what you have to say is so damned important that it trumps my right to be left the hell alone if I so desire?
Sorry for being not 100% accurate on that, but maybe in this case, you should be asking the phone company, not the government, to filter your calls.
OK, as soon as we make caller ID spoofing a federal crime, along with an identifier flag that labels you as a charity, business, individual, or political group. Then I can use my own ability to filter my own calls according to the appropriate category. That do it for you?
Currently, there is no way for the phone company to do that, so we're left with a do-not-call list.
Then, when you've flipped the idiot switch off, why don't you read what I wrote again and bother to appreciate that freedom of speech governs government restriction of communication over public utility.
First, didn't you just say something about ad hominem attacks, Mr. Hypocrite? Second, as has been pointed out many times, the First Amendment guarantees you the right to speech, not an audience. Third, the phone system isn't a public utility. However, if you'd like to send me messages through my water pipes, go right ahead.
I think that's pretty clear, which makes me wonder why they want their name on such a stinker.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that they couldn't get a partner to help them do it right, so they did it crappy with as little exposure as possible. Maybe the next company to try it will listen to Apple's input?
No, he just said he created it. He's wrong and idiotic either way, and the difference between what he said and what he claimed to have said is splitting hairs.
Many times politicians use smear campaigns to twist what people say, but this time they didn't have to. That Snopes article is clearly spinning the best possible light on Gore, and the comparison to Eisenhower and the interstate system is ludicrous.
In other words, what Gore said was idiotic, and substituting the actual quote for the misattributed one doesn't make it any less idiotic.
I would consider working for Microsoft, IF I was given a sufficient amount of control over my own project, AND it was GPL'd and free of patents. Which, if Microsoft was thinking straight, wouldn't be such a bad idea -- it'd be great PR, and it'd produce great software, something they seem incapable of on their own.
Um, just because you GPL something, doesn't instantly make it good.
Hmmm. When I first read it, it was just stupid enough that I figured some Slashdot Open Source fanboy might've advocated it as a "Hyuck" solution, but reading it again, I think I might've been taken by a troll.:)
Don't feel bad at all, I'm not completely sure it is a troll myself. If it was a troll, it was a beauty, as it was simultaneously ridiculous and credible. The idea was dumb, but not moreso than most of the other dumb shit I hear around here.
The tipoff (to me) was combining the multiple MX server idea with random storage to create a situation where you might never get all your email, because I think you'd have to be fairly knowledgeable about mail systems to come up with something so completely insane.
Think this through -- a lot of e-mail programs check every 20 minutes. Assuming I actually hit any without duplications, I could potentially need 400 minutes or over six hours to get all my mail. Since it's random, it could take days.
And that's just for starters with this lame scheme. If I want to check mail, say, from the field on a dial-up once a day... hopefully you can see how badly this would suck.
That's why I'm pretty sure the aforementioned post was a rather good troll. Either that, or he has a $100/day crack habit.
What the guy should do is buy an e-mail system that can handle 1,000,000 users and not screw around trying to chewing gum his own solution.
Think that's retarded? Think about the idiot company that trusted the design of their 1M-account server to some clown that's never set one up before, and thinks slashdot is the best place to start looking. They're absolutely fucked, and they deserve all of it.
Hey that's good! It would be great (for about an hour) if when something took a while to load, the OS whispered through the speakers...."It's loading!"
I think there's a lot of truth there, but it's not a matter of just clicky vs typey. To me, there are only two things that matter: learning curve, and eventual productivity after I've climbed said curve. The goal of most modern GUIs - and indeed, the goal of the Gnome Foundation - is to lessen the learning curve by making things somehow obvious to users.
As you say, nothing is entirely intuitive in computers, because it isn't the real world. But we're not inventing computers for the first time, so to me doing things the way they've usually been done makes things the most intuitive. If you steer away from convention, do *something* to make it obvious how the user can do what he wants. This is basic interface design, GUI or not.
To me, this is where Gnome currently fails. It goes away from convention, but makes no effort to ensure that the new way of doing things will be discovered in a reasonable fashion.
Gnome's commitment to the "logical default" is it's greatest strength.
I don't believe their defaults are all that logical. Also, since there's usually only one way to do things with no consideration for standard use, they need to do a better job (a la Apple) of making that method easier to determine.
Further, there are tons of alternative desktops and window managers out there; use them.
I am. However, that general attitude has been marginalizing Gnome for some time now. Put it this way - if I thought Gnome had nothing to offer, I wouldn't be frustrated. Fact is, it has some great characteristics that it continually kills through some completely hare-brained design choices.
I've never understood the rabid hating that goes on here on Slashdot, and the promotion of same with "insightful" ratings.
I don't hate, and I'm not rabid. I'd like a DE with a clean interface, hell, I own an Apple, you'd think I'd be their target market. But last I tried (last month), I couldn't figure out how to modify Gnome in any way. So I quit. I gave it a try, with an open mind, and it doesn't work. Sadly, I think Gnome is worse now than it was 3 years ago, and that's not a good thing.
Now get back to your E17 and twiddle the shade color of the blinking fade thing.
See, you assume that, because it's easy, but you're wrong. I switched to Blackbox, which is clean, doesn't do much, so it has nothing to twiddle. I don't want to twiddle, but I do want to be able to add some damned applications to a menu. I'm not a moron, and I couldn't figure out how to do that in an hour, so I quit.
Gnome needs to consider the possibility that normal people who would consider using their program can't figure out how to do simple things, and that it's not the fault of said users. Assuming, that is, that Gnome F. actually wants people to use its program?
Gnome menu editing is integrated with the damn menu, everything is drag & drop or context menu. Many KDE users couldn't figure it out when in reality HIG studies by both Red Hat and I believe also Novell showed that normal users found that intuitive and having to open up a whole new program just to edit a menu in KDE was absurd.
Then that's a flawed study. It's easier if you know that is an option, but how the hell are you supposed to know how to do that? Guessing? If they're going to try cute-sy things like that, it better be really intuitive. Maybe add a tooltip or something that indicates how programs may be added to the menu.
It's hard to argue HIG studies against a ton of real-world experience. You can say menus shouldn't be edited by external programs, and that it's the fault of those users. First, that attitude sucks - if all the users can't use your program, it's your fault, period. Second, all major operating environments require some kind of external programs to edit menus, among those that use menus. If you're going to be different, make it easy to figure out how you're different. Third, those HIG studies only make sense among people who have never used computers, which seems for some ridiculous reason to be Gnome's target market. And you wonder why fewer and fewer people use Gnome.
To paraphase Feynman, if your theory is in conflict with reality, it's wrong, no matter how pretty it is.
In Gnome if you want to do something, its most likely the most obvious way of doing it so try it (don't think obvious as a developer, think obvious as a regular user).
I'm not a developer, and it wasn't obvious to me as a regular user. Dragging something onto a menu doesn't make much sense. Having an uption like "edit menu" which brings up a nice spatial environment with icons makes it obvious that you're supposed to drag and drop. That would be nice. I'm not saying I want to type a bunch of crap in, and I'll admit KDE is screwed up on this. As a side note, I don't use KDE.
Regular users should never come face to face with a configuration dialog of any sort unless they have every intention of it and they know whats going on. Most users don't know, configuring minor things should not be readily available to users.
I'll grant that, but some things actually need to be done. Gnome goes way overboard in ensuring that their systems can only be used by people only doing the bare minimum with computers. Contrast that with the Linux userbase which is generally computer proficient, and I can't understand their motivation.
I use Mac OSX in addition to linux, which strikes a very nice balance between ease of use and customizability. That's the thing - Apple makes everything nice and spatial by getting rid of menus almost alltogether on the Desktop. There is no applications button. Gnome goes halfway, mixes everything up, and ends up with something that is very much counterintuitive. Some personalization needs to be done to a computer by even regular users, and Gnome makes this impossible.
One more note, developers tend to be sloppy, spatial is much better once again for an average person. Once you use it for a bit, you realize the benefits. So many people have spent years in that alternative horrid messy directory structure that they automatically assume change is bad.
I'll grant that for the average user, although I personally need the organization of a directory tree to avoid losing things. Does Gnome still allow turning off of spatial?
Wake up and give Gnome a shot, it does alot under the hood for you and will make your desktop experience more efficient.
Like I said, I did give it a try with the last version, because I was sick of KDE. I couldn't figure out how to add things to menus, so I quit. Methinks the Gnome Foundation's hubris is costing them users. In any event, they switched back - something they almost never do - so I'd consider that an admission they were wrong.
I have a theory that Microsoft employees are trying to sabotage the open source initiative by "volunteering" to help work on the code. Personally, I'd just like to be able to set an evironment variable, e.g. MS_EMULATION_ATTEMPT=0 and have all this eye candy crap go away.
Here you go. Not an environment variable, but does the same basic thing.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Um...was that the goal? Quite frankly, he's enough that his own people have trouble affecting Steve's "vision," I'll guarantee these people won't and aren't trying.
This is at least more worthwhile than the rest of Mac rumor sites - these people kind of know what the hell they're talking about.
Well they have me left - I like unix, I like functional interfaces, I don't want to screw with drivers constantly, and I need compatibility with the rest of the world. Got any suggestions aside from Apple?
Hey, you have something brown on your tongue.
Then I'm making up for about 3000 nerds who can't jog a single foot?
Well that's good, I'm glad.
And about the 1st amendment not guaranteeing the right to an audience, that still applies here. Hang up the phone.
Not the way the law works. I have the right to generally ban people from my property as a blanket. What makes you think what you have to say is so damned important that it trumps my right to be left the hell alone if I so desire?
Sorry for being not 100% accurate on that, but maybe in this case, you should be asking the phone company, not the government, to filter your calls.
OK, as soon as we make caller ID spoofing a federal crime, along with an identifier flag that labels you as a charity, business, individual, or political group. Then I can use my own ability to filter my own calls according to the appropriate category. That do it for you?
Currently, there is no way for the phone company to do that, so we're left with a do-not-call list.
First, didn't you just say something about ad hominem attacks, Mr. Hypocrite? Second, as has been pointed out many times, the First Amendment guarantees you the right to speech, not an audience. Third, the phone system isn't a public utility. However, if you'd like to send me messages through my water pipes, go right ahead.
I used to work in a nearly all-Chinese lab, and I never noticed such behavior, but this was 10 years ago. Does this have anything to do with SARS?
The only thing that makes sense to me is that they couldn't get a partner to help them do it right, so they did it crappy with as little exposure as possible. Maybe the next company to try it will listen to Apple's input?
2-3. Politician claims credit for things he didn't do and rightfully gets nailed.
4. Words require little to no twisting because while he's not a liar, he's self-deluded and incompetent.
6-7. Fantastic strawman.
Wait - since when was Gore a competent leader, and of what?
Many times politicians use smear campaigns to twist what people say, but this time they didn't have to. That Snopes article is clearly spinning the best possible light on Gore, and the comparison to Eisenhower and the interstate system is ludicrous.
In other words, what Gore said was idiotic, and substituting the actual quote for the misattributed one doesn't make it any less idiotic.
Firefox on the Mac is about as stable as a schizophrenic off their lithium.
If your rear projection TV only weighs half as much as you do, you might consider gastric bybass surgery.
I think you're taking this shit to an extreme if you see software licensing as a matter of ethics. Time to stop drinking the kool aid.
Um, just because you GPL something, doesn't instantly make it good.
Because nerds probably play a lot of video games?
Dude, that was fucking hilarious. Excellent troll, sir.
Don't feel bad at all, I'm not completely sure it is a troll myself. If it was a troll, it was a beauty, as it was simultaneously ridiculous and credible. The idea was dumb, but not moreso than most of the other dumb shit I hear around here.
The tipoff (to me) was combining the multiple MX server idea with random storage to create a situation where you might never get all your email, because I think you'd have to be fairly knowledgeable about mail systems to come up with something so completely insane.
Ya gotta love a great troll, even if you feed it.
That's why I'm pretty sure the aforementioned post was a rather good troll. Either that, or he has a $100/day crack habit.
What the guy should do is buy an e-mail system that can handle 1,000,000 users and not screw around trying to chewing gum his own solution.
Think that's retarded? Think about the idiot company that trusted the design of their 1M-account server to some clown that's never set one up before, and thinks slashdot is the best place to start looking. They're absolutely fucked, and they deserve all of it.
I'd ask for six bullets. Why would you want to risk getting the empty chamber? I see that you are familiar with the subtle nuances of Polish Roulette.
Hey that's good! It would be great (for about an hour) if when something took a while to load, the OS whispered through the speakers...."It's loading!"
As you say, nothing is entirely intuitive in computers, because it isn't the real world. But we're not inventing computers for the first time, so to me doing things the way they've usually been done makes things the most intuitive. If you steer away from convention, do *something* to make it obvious how the user can do what he wants. This is basic interface design, GUI or not.
To me, this is where Gnome currently fails. It goes away from convention, but makes no effort to ensure that the new way of doing things will be discovered in a reasonable fashion.
Gnome's commitment to the "logical default" is it's greatest strength.
I don't believe their defaults are all that logical. Also, since there's usually only one way to do things with no consideration for standard use, they need to do a better job (a la Apple) of making that method easier to determine.
Further, there are tons of alternative desktops and window managers out there; use them.
I am. However, that general attitude has been marginalizing Gnome for some time now. Put it this way - if I thought Gnome had nothing to offer, I wouldn't be frustrated. Fact is, it has some great characteristics that it continually kills through some completely hare-brained design choices.
I've never understood the rabid hating that goes on here on Slashdot, and the promotion of same with "insightful" ratings.
I don't hate, and I'm not rabid. I'd like a DE with a clean interface, hell, I own an Apple, you'd think I'd be their target market. But last I tried (last month), I couldn't figure out how to modify Gnome in any way. So I quit. I gave it a try, with an open mind, and it doesn't work. Sadly, I think Gnome is worse now than it was 3 years ago, and that's not a good thing.
Now get back to your E17 and twiddle the shade color of the blinking fade thing.
See, you assume that, because it's easy, but you're wrong. I switched to Blackbox, which is clean, doesn't do much, so it has nothing to twiddle. I don't want to twiddle, but I do want to be able to add some damned applications to a menu. I'm not a moron, and I couldn't figure out how to do that in an hour, so I quit.
Gnome needs to consider the possibility that normal people who would consider using their program can't figure out how to do simple things, and that it's not the fault of said users. Assuming, that is, that Gnome F. actually wants people to use its program?
Then that's a flawed study. It's easier if you know that is an option, but how the hell are you supposed to know how to do that? Guessing? If they're going to try cute-sy things like that, it better be really intuitive. Maybe add a tooltip or something that indicates how programs may be added to the menu.
It's hard to argue HIG studies against a ton of real-world experience. You can say menus shouldn't be edited by external programs, and that it's the fault of those users. First, that attitude sucks - if all the users can't use your program, it's your fault, period. Second, all major operating environments require some kind of external programs to edit menus, among those that use menus. If you're going to be different, make it easy to figure out how you're different. Third, those HIG studies only make sense among people who have never used computers, which seems for some ridiculous reason to be Gnome's target market. And you wonder why fewer and fewer people use Gnome.
To paraphase Feynman, if your theory is in conflict with reality, it's wrong, no matter how pretty it is.
In Gnome if you want to do something, its most likely the most obvious way of doing it so try it (don't think obvious as a developer, think obvious as a regular user).
I'm not a developer, and it wasn't obvious to me as a regular user. Dragging something onto a menu doesn't make much sense. Having an uption like "edit menu" which brings up a nice spatial environment with icons makes it obvious that you're supposed to drag and drop. That would be nice. I'm not saying I want to type a bunch of crap in, and I'll admit KDE is screwed up on this. As a side note, I don't use KDE.
Regular users should never come face to face with a configuration dialog of any sort unless they have every intention of it and they know whats going on. Most users don't know, configuring minor things should not be readily available to users.
I'll grant that, but some things actually need to be done. Gnome goes way overboard in ensuring that their systems can only be used by people only doing the bare minimum with computers. Contrast that with the Linux userbase which is generally computer proficient, and I can't understand their motivation.
I use Mac OSX in addition to linux, which strikes a very nice balance between ease of use and customizability. That's the thing - Apple makes everything nice and spatial by getting rid of menus almost alltogether on the Desktop. There is no applications button. Gnome goes halfway, mixes everything up, and ends up with something that is very much counterintuitive. Some personalization needs to be done to a computer by even regular users, and Gnome makes this impossible.
One more note, developers tend to be sloppy, spatial is much better once again for an average person. Once you use it for a bit, you realize the benefits. So many people have spent years in that alternative horrid messy directory structure that they automatically assume change is bad.
I'll grant that for the average user, although I personally need the organization of a directory tree to avoid losing things. Does Gnome still allow turning off of spatial?
Wake up and give Gnome a shot, it does alot under the hood for you and will make your desktop experience more efficient.
Like I said, I did give it a try with the last version, because I was sick of KDE. I couldn't figure out how to add things to menus, so I quit. Methinks the Gnome Foundation's hubris is costing them users. In any event, they switched back - something they almost never do - so I'd consider that an admission they were wrong.
All I nee
Because they don't know better than me how I can best use my computer.
Here you go. Not an environment variable, but does the same basic thing. ;)
ln -s /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.blackbox ~/.xinitrc