This is an attempt at providing a kind of "compatibility layer" for IE in order to essentially "emulate" CSS compatibility on IE. He calls it a "compliance patch" or "IE7":) The idea is that web developers include this file that uses DHTML to provide a compatibility layer for IE. If the user is using a standards-compliant browser (e.g. Mozilla) then the page renders as normal. So web page developers can just develop straight to standards.
Oh for God's sake. You're reading the damn article, aren't you? If you don't think it's newsworthy or interesting, how did you even get this far? Why didn't you just skip it?
I know it's a joke, but since there are often posts by people "confused" about whether "we" are supposed to be "loving" or "hating" some or other company today: this isn't television where everything is either in a "good" box or an "evil" box; in real life, things are never black and white, and a company is a complex, multi-faceted entity, and the various actions of companies can have both good and bad aspects at the same time.
Most *nix users are not hobbyists, most are using it for "real" stuff in companies, and normally because it works better/easier/more reliably than other solutions. Those "hobbyists" who play around with it at home are usually the same guys who are using it for real stuff at work at the same time. And so what? If I use Windows at work, does that make me a "hobbyist" if I use Windows at home too? I don't think so.
It's one thing for Joe Photoshop-Artist to pick up GIMP and struggle to find documentation for it because they don't know how to use Google.
But it's quote another thing when Joe Photoshop-Artist is explicitly writing a review about a software product. Come on. You can't tell me that someone trying to write an objective, public review about a product is going to make claims that no documentation exists without even checking at all? No, that's not possible, not unless the "reviewer" is a totall ass. Would you write an objective review about a product without even doing *the* most basic research? No way. If he doesn't even know how to use Google, he could have asked somebody, or rather jut not written a review. Because you don't write reviews about things you know nothing about, that's just stupid. Any reviewer's first question would be "are there books or manuals for this product". And you're telling me he assumed there were none without even checking? I mean, you can't miss it if you look for it. Heck, the manual's even been translated to Japanese. Heck(2), it's even for sale on Amazon.com, just search for "GIMP manual".
Most real users of Photoshop didn't use the "documentation that came with the program" anyway. I know many designers. They are used to buying books and going on courses.
No manual for the GIMP? WTF? I studied and used GIMP at least four or five years ago (and did some advanced scripting-based things then that even Photoshop couldn't come near!), and there was a large and extensive User's Manual even back then! I even printed it out. I would be quite surprised if the manual no longer exists now.
Gee, let's try some Google: GIMP User's Manual, there that wasn't so hard was it.
And you call this an "overall problem with OpenSource software"? You blatantly lie, then generalise the lie to all OSS? That's extreme FUD, and seriously makes me contemplate that Adobe has sponsored this "review".
Distributed DDOS on an organization's servers IS NOT TERRORISM already (unless explicitly accompanied by physical violence or threats of physical violence). Sheesh, have we all been that brainwashed already by Bush and things like Patriot Act?
If DDOSing some servers is "terrorism", then so is almost every single crime in the book.
Yes, most professional designers have not only spent days or weeks dedicated just to studying/learning Photoshop, but also read User's Manuals and tutorials, and many have also gone on courses to learn Photoshop, and have continued to learn Photoshop in the process of using it on the job and also learning tips from colleagues that you work with.
Now somebody like that picks up the GIMP and expects to be able to be just as fluent but with only a miniscule fraction of the effort put into learning it. They play with it for a few hours, perhaps a few days at most, struggle to figure out how to do things they already know how to do on PS, and then give up, blaming the GIMP.
I've never met one single Photoshop user who tried GIMP who was fair enough to put in anywhere near as many hours learning GIMP as they had already put into learning PS before criticising GIMP. Basically their main criticism usually boils down to "hey, this isn't Photoshop".
I'm not saying that GIMP is at least as good as PS, just that virtually no reviews are being done fairly.
Hehe, that reminds me of a story about an old physics prof of ours back when I was in University. Rather strict old guy but very good. He lectured in a huge auditorium, so he wore a microphone and his voice boomed out over the auditorium sound system. One day he took a break to go take a leak, and forgot to turn off the mike..:)
OK, I didn't realise you meant something at least API-compatible (binary compatibility is probably pushing it!). Yes, indeed, it would do Linux a lot of good to have a "DirectX clone". Unfortunately these days DirectX, and especially Direct3D, is a very complex beast, with high-level shader languages, and compilers/assemblers for shader languages that are part of Direct3D card drivers and the D3D reference implementation (software). And advancing pretty fast too. Heck, with the difficulty in keeping up with something like that, perhaps some sort of binary compatibility would be easier to obtain - e.g. something akin to coLinux, but the inverse - "coWin32", running on Linux? Then you just load "real" Win32 drivers and components. But then I guess you're back to the problem of just being closed-source again. *sigh*.
Nanotechnology has the potential to be significantly more lethal, and readily available, than nuclear weapons.
I think nanotechnological f*-ups also have the most potential to "escape" and run out of our control, more so than anything we've ever devised before. This is not silly paranoia, it's just being rational, I mean this is just one of the capabilities that these technologies bring to nano-manufactured nano-devices. This is totally different to, say, a nuclear weapon, no nuclear weapon, for example, has ever been designed that could self-replicate on a huge scale and be airborne, where-as this is entirely possible with nano-devices.
Mistakes are pretty much inevitable too, as with everything else man does, and we are quite capable of making mistakes that cause damage on a huge scale (e.g. Chernobyl, CFCs and ozone hole, and many thousands of smaller mistakes). One just hopes that our capabilies for controlling the extent of the damage of our mistakes as we progress and learn will be good enough that we don't do major damage. However reading some of the comments on/. I don't think humans are intelligent or rational enough yet to handle it.
The logical conclusion to these surveillance systems is the government being able to track where anyone is, anytime (them and their cars, by consolidating information from various sources, e.g. cellphone networks, image analysis and pattern/character recognition). Track anyone, anytime, anywhere. Listen to what anyone is saying, anytime, anywhere. At least, that is the ideal, and something fairly close to that is where this is all headed. In our lifetimes. People on this forum keep making the mistake of thinking "but it's that harmful now", without any apparent ability to think what the longer-term implications are.
Now, the government just does not need so much power. Period. So why give it to them unnecessarily? What's the real advantage? It's just an unnecessary risk, which nobody with any sense would take. There is just so much potential for abuse it's just insane and stupid to allow the government that much power. The chances of it not being abused in some way are close to zero. And the chances of the government always remaining a nice, friendly, innocent government, well, read a history book.
You're right. People who are more intelligent/knowledgeable than you should pretend to be less intelligent/knowledgeable so that people like you don't need to feel threatened.
Uh, right. What a ridiculous aspect of our culture. Some people are more intelligent than you, and stating that they should pretend not to know things that they do know just so that you don't get offended is patently absurd.
Nice try, but that's not because there is "no answer to DirectX on Linux", it's because those games are specifically developed only for Windows. That's a problem with the game development companies, not with Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
I did 'view source' on both those sites, and BOTH of them still use tables. So what's your point exactly?
Yup, with Windows XP Microsoft caught right up to the 90's.
So now I'm supposed to suddenly be afraid of doing something I've been doing my life without any ill effects so far? Sounds like a marketing ploy.
This is an attempt at providing a kind of "compatibility layer" for IE in order to essentially "emulate" CSS compatibility on IE. He calls it a "compliance patch" or "IE7" :) The idea is that web developers include this file that uses DHTML to provide a compatibility layer for IE. If the user is using a standards-compliant browser (e.g. Mozilla) then the page renders as normal. So web page developers can just develop straight to standards.
Oh for God's sake. You're reading the damn article, aren't you? If you don't think it's newsworthy or interesting, how did you even get this far? Why didn't you just skip it?
The exception to that, of course, is Microsoft, who are always Evil :)
I know it's a joke, but since there are often posts by people "confused" about whether "we" are supposed to be "loving" or "hating" some or other company today: this isn't television where everything is either in a "good" box or an "evil" box; in real life, things are never black and white, and a company is a complex, multi-faceted entity, and the various actions of companies can have both good and bad aspects at the same time.
"Windows PCs are only cheaper than Macs if your time has no value".
And pray tell, how could we possibly know it's a joke if there are many people who think and speak exactly like that?
Sorry, attached that to wrong parent, I was actually responding to higher-up posts from ObviousGuy implying that most *nix users are 'just' hobbyists.
Most *nix users are not hobbyists, most are using it for "real" stuff in companies, and normally because it works better/easier/more reliably than other solutions. Those "hobbyists" who play around with it at home are usually the same guys who are using it for real stuff at work at the same time. And so what? If I use Windows at work, does that make me a "hobbyist" if I use Windows at home too? I don't think so.
WTF, "Troll"? How? Hope the meta-moderators get you.
Because it works.
I call BS on you.
It's one thing for Joe Photoshop-Artist to pick up GIMP and struggle to find documentation for it because they don't know how to use Google.
But it's quote another thing when Joe Photoshop-Artist is explicitly writing a review about a software product. Come on. You can't tell me that someone trying to write an objective, public review about a product is going to make claims that no documentation exists without even checking at all? No, that's not possible, not unless the "reviewer" is a totall ass. Would you write an objective review about a product without even doing *the* most basic research? No way. If he doesn't even know how to use Google, he could have asked somebody, or rather jut not written a review. Because you don't write reviews about things you know nothing about, that's just stupid. Any reviewer's first question would be "are there books or manuals for this product". And you're telling me he assumed there were none without even checking? I mean, you can't miss it if you look for it. Heck, the manual's even been translated to Japanese. Heck(2), it's even for sale on Amazon.com, just search for "GIMP manual".
Most real users of Photoshop didn't use the "documentation that came with the program" anyway. I know many designers. They are used to buying books and going on courses.
No manual for the GIMP? WTF? I studied and used GIMP at least four or five years ago (and did some advanced scripting-based things then that even Photoshop couldn't come near!), and there was a large and extensive User's Manual even back then! I even printed it out. I would be quite surprised if the manual no longer exists now.
Gee, let's try some Google: GIMP User's Manual, there that wasn't so hard was it.
And you call this an "overall problem with OpenSource software"? You blatantly lie, then generalise the lie to all OSS? That's extreme FUD, and seriously makes me contemplate that Adobe has sponsored this "review".
I doubt it would make much difference, because the vast majority of spammers are American.
Most of the mail is only relayed through insecure Asian servers, and monitoring Internet cafes is not going to help secure those servers.
Rather cut spam at it's source.
Distributed DDOS on an organization's servers IS NOT TERRORISM already (unless explicitly accompanied by physical violence or threats of physical violence). Sheesh, have we all been that brainwashed already by Bush and things like Patriot Act?
If DDOSing some servers is "terrorism", then so is almost every single crime in the book.
Yes, most professional designers have not only spent days or weeks dedicated just to studying/learning Photoshop, but also read User's Manuals and tutorials, and many have also gone on courses to learn Photoshop, and have continued to learn Photoshop in the process of using it on the job and also learning tips from colleagues that you work with.
Now somebody like that picks up the GIMP and expects to be able to be just as fluent but with only a miniscule fraction of the effort put into learning it. They play with it for a few hours, perhaps a few days at most, struggle to figure out how to do things they already know how to do on PS, and then give up, blaming the GIMP.
I've never met one single Photoshop user who tried GIMP who was fair enough to put in anywhere near as many hours learning GIMP as they had already put into learning PS before criticising GIMP. Basically their main criticism usually boils down to "hey, this isn't Photoshop".
I'm not saying that GIMP is at least as good as PS, just that virtually no reviews are being done fairly.
Hehe, that reminds me of a story about an old physics prof of ours back when I was in University. Rather strict old guy but very good. He lectured in a huge auditorium, so he wore a microphone and his voice boomed out over the auditorium sound system. One day he took a break to go take a leak, and forgot to turn off the mike .. :)
OK, I didn't realise you meant something at least API-compatible (binary compatibility is probably pushing it!). Yes, indeed, it would do Linux a lot of good to have a "DirectX clone". Unfortunately these days DirectX, and especially Direct3D, is a very complex beast, with high-level shader languages, and compilers/assemblers for shader languages that are part of Direct3D card drivers and the D3D reference implementation (software). And advancing pretty fast too. Heck, with the difficulty in keeping up with something like that, perhaps some sort of binary compatibility would be easier to obtain - e.g. something akin to coLinux, but the inverse - "coWin32", running on Linux? Then you just load "real" Win32 drivers and components. But then I guess you're back to the problem of just being closed-source again. *sigh*.
Nanotechnology has the potential to be significantly more lethal, and readily available, than nuclear weapons.
I think nanotechnological f*-ups also have the most potential to "escape" and run out of our control, more so than anything we've ever devised before. This is not silly paranoia, it's just being rational, I mean this is just one of the capabilities that these technologies bring to nano-manufactured nano-devices. This is totally different to, say, a nuclear weapon, no nuclear weapon, for example, has ever been designed that could self-replicate on a huge scale and be airborne, where-as this is entirely possible with nano-devices.
Mistakes are pretty much inevitable too, as with everything else man does, and we are quite capable of making mistakes that cause damage on a huge scale (e.g. Chernobyl, CFCs and ozone hole, and many thousands of smaller mistakes). One just hopes that our capabilies for controlling the extent of the damage of our mistakes as we progress and learn will be good enough that we don't do major damage. However reading some of the comments on /. I don't think humans are intelligent or rational enough yet to handle it.
+4 Insightful? More like -1 Dumbass-unable-to-think-logically.
The logical conclusion to these surveillance systems is the government being able to track where anyone is, anytime (them and their cars, by consolidating information from various sources, e.g. cellphone networks, image analysis and pattern/character recognition). Track anyone, anytime, anywhere. Listen to what anyone is saying, anytime, anywhere. At least, that is the ideal, and something fairly close to that is where this is all headed. In our lifetimes. People on this forum keep making the mistake of thinking "but it's that harmful now", without any apparent ability to think what the longer-term implications are.
Now, the government just does not need so much power. Period. So why give it to them unnecessarily? What's the real advantage? It's just an unnecessary risk, which nobody with any sense would take. There is just so much potential for abuse it's just insane and stupid to allow the government that much power. The chances of it not being abused in some way are close to zero. And the chances of the government always remaining a nice, friendly, innocent government, well, read a history book.
You're right. People who are more intelligent/knowledgeable than you should pretend to be less intelligent/knowledgeable so that people like you don't need to feel threatened.
Uh, right. What a ridiculous aspect of our culture. Some people are more intelligent than you, and stating that they should pretend not to know things that they do know just so that you don't get offended is patently absurd.
Nice try, but that's not because there is "no answer to DirectX on Linux", it's because those games are specifically developed only for Windows. That's a problem with the game development companies, not with Linux.