My friends and I take our old drives out for target practice. Some.357 and.308 usually do the trick. If someone can get my chat logs off of that then more power to them.
That and, in all honesty, if you're in a Qt environment in Linux then odds are you're also running KDE and thus have a nice helping of Konqueror.
And yeah, the Flash plugin is ass. What ticks me off is that using Crossover Office to use the Windows plugin works much better than the "native" Linux one.
I don't mind IE losers like yourself with no consideration for other browsers/devices because you're effectively going to be a dinosaur soon, assuming you aren't already. Developing with web standards is more than simply getting things to look right in every browser. It is a matter of making your content available to multiple platforms and devices.
Other devices hitting the web are going to get more and more common and as that demand grows, so will the demand for people who develop to standards. The web is moving its focus away from browsers more and more as time goes on. When 10 - 20% of the users are hitting you from a PDA or a cell phone, or some other device (like a voice reader in their car) the "IE Only" thing ain't gonna work. I'm not saying there's going to be a PCless future anytime soon... but other devices are getting more and more sophisticated.
Besides, being a web developer that can get things working well in multiple Browsers and to standards is what seperates a pro from well... an asshat like yourself. I'm glad people like you exist... because when clients get disgusted and fire you, they're willing to pay me more.
And as for you "95%" of the users... try 80 - 85%. I don't know how many people/companies are going to hire some guy that says, "Eh... I'll alienate 15% of your potential customers just because it's easier for me that way. Who cares about non-Microsoft users anyway? I mean... do those people even have money?" Furthermore those 15% often include the disabled with special devices. Alienating them is *always* good for company PR. Again, your kind is a people I like to call "Job Security" for myself.
"You'd think that something so ignorant would come from days like those of the civil war."
Oh yes. I forgot. In 1954 the United States was a racial accepting place where people like Martin Luther King Jr. lead quiet lives and had no work in front of them to equalize things.
Again... being LDS is nothing special concerning racism. Mark E Peterson was living in a time where Southpark's "Operation Human Shield" comprised of blacks wasn't a joke, it was standard operating procedure.
You cannot remove a statement from the era it was spoken in. Now if you can find a modern apostle saying something similar in a modern conference, please let me know.
"Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and ruin, infamy and shame.
"Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress.
"Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings; for 'an hour of virtuous liberty on earth is worth a whole eternity of bondage.'" -- Joseph Smith, 1844
Real racist there. I mean geez. If you're gonna condemn the Mormons you should condemn anyone that accepts the Old Testament as scripture. Gimme a break. For every racist remark I could list one contrary. What it shows is that a collection of weak men in a country that was, more as less, built up by a majority of racists.
Please try not to remove the era from the statements. Brigham Young lived in a time where half of America didn't even view blacks or indians as human. They were considered subhuman savages. How is his view any different from that of Joshua or Moses who would go in and butcher those who weren't members of "The Tribe."
The LDS prophets, even to those who believe that they are divinely inspired do not claim their perfection in any way.
Of course the church was full of racism. It was formed by a huge collection of hicks in pre-civil war America. America was still segregated into the mid-twentieth century and racism still abounds.
To point to the LDS Church as anything special in the world of racism is ridiculous. Was it riddled with racism? Yeah. Is it still? To some degree. Is it a lot different that dozens of other Christian organizations? Not really.
"Why do the American Indians have dark skin? It's because they were evil and wicked.... That's not bigotry is it?"
How often, in the Bible, are the sins of the fathers answered on the heads of the children and on to further generations? This concept is also not specific to being LDS. Furthermore there are plenty of Christian sects (and I don't count the modern, pop-culture Christians who have created a religion that is ignorant of its own history) that believe the blacks are the descendents of Cain. Again, nothing specific to being LDS.
Oh yes, and as for the American Indians with dark skin, if you read the actual text of the Book of Mormon you would know that in the last days they are to be one of the most blessed peoples of earth and that in the days after Christ were among the most righteous on earth.
The LDS church never was and still isn't anymore racist than the country it was born in. No matter what the doctrine of a belief, it's always affected by the cultures it operates in, for better or for worse. Give credit where credit is due.
Brigham Young was a racist. It was wrong. However, I don't see you up in arms making the same statements about George Washington or....
Most of us here have grown up in a post civil rights movement world. Racism in the general public is *finally* viewed as a bad thing. How different would you or I be if we were born into a culture that told us people with dark skin were lesser beings? I don't mean just our immediate family, but the guy at the grocery store, our school teachers, the people we worked with, etc.
Brighman Young lived in a country where it was the "in thing" to shoot Native Americans. You can say, "Oh! That's racist and wrong! How could anyone ever do such a thing!?"
Take your own family tree back 150 years and I'm sure your family faired no better than most Americans (assuming your family was here back then). Again, the point here is to look at context. That much beloved First Amendment that we love to scream about here at Slashdot was written by a bunch of racists who lived in a completely different world than you and I. Cut'm some slack.
I was excited when PM came out, I really was. After seeing it, I was still excited. Problem is, when I really thought about it, the only thing that I could remember was the damn lightsaber battle at the end. (Which, in my mind, at least justified the movie because that's my primary interest in Star Wars, lightsabers.) Oh yes and I could also remember that I fucking hated Jar-Jar. Some people said, "He was there for kids." You know what though? He was there for *retarded* kids. The kids I knew that went even thought he was just lame.
The second one I liked better, but the thing that killed me was that for every scene I really loved, there was another scene that made me squirm in the seat in the theatre. Every time Anakin spoke was one of those instances. I know Star Wars is capable of entertaining romance... they did it with Han and Leia. What, did they just forget? Anakin and Padme was just... bad. Really bad. It was flat. It was awful. It made me ill.
The only thing that makes me excited about the next movie is that it's Star Wars. If these movies weren't Star Wars they'd be just another expensive, glitzy movie that, while entertaining, isn't much else. Mind you, the reason the movie is capable of making me feel discomfort at the same time is because it's Star Wars. So it all balances.
Really, it's my childhood connection to these movies that does anything for me that any other action movie wouldn't do. While I want to see the third movie, I'm not expecting much except that I hope the lightsabers dueling is used through the whole movie and cuts out as much talking as possible.
Also, it can't end like The Matrix did so there's another plus too.
Re:The flagship...
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Yeah, I felt like I lost something when 3rd came out too. No more fucking THAC0! I miss it in the same sense that I would miss a huge black boil removed from my ass by a local physician.
Btw: one of the tenets of user interfaces is: if the user requires a manual, then the interface has failed in its task.
That is a stupid tenet or at least it's incomplete. Photoshop has a good user interface. It's easy to learn and you can do simple things with no documentation. However, you still a need a manual to do a lot of cool things.
One of the biggest problems here is a lot of people say, "A compute is a tool, like a hammer. Who needs a manual to use a hammer?" To use a hammer properly, you have to learn. It's not as simple as look and smack. And on the subject, what kind of hammer should you use when framing vs masonry vs finishing vs drywall? Yeah, any Joe-schmoe can grab one of those five dollar Walmart specials and put nails up for hanging pictures but this guy isn't going to go out and do framing. (You'd use a framing gun for that nowadays anyway.)
If a user needs a manual to complete obvious tasks, then the user interface is flawed. But just becuase a manual is necessary is often a statement of complexity rather than a statement of a good UI. Yeah, you might not need a manual to hammer a nail in to hang a picture but you need a manual to hook up a framing gun to an air compressor and lay frame for a house, period. Building codes and regulations don't beam in to your head from the sky. They aren't self evident.
No matter how "intuitive" an email client is you still have to figure out what your "incoming server" is and whether it's POP or IMAP.
We need to stop comparing computers to appliances and simple tools. They're not simple. Cars, I think, draw the best comparison. The interface is pretty simple and intuitive I think. However, to really go anywhere you have to learn traffic laws or you won't be able to be very productive with a car. And if you're a more sophisticated driver like, a racer, you have to learn to drive manual. It's less "intuitive" than an automatic but it's superior for a number of things. Ease != Better
This has turned into a general rant about stuff I've read on this topic. So yeah... do I offer any solutions? Make what needs to be obvious obvious. After writing a piece of software, have your dad try it out and see how he handles it.
There's one serious flaw in your logic. If someone is going to give up on Linux because they can't deal with the UI then if they have a Windows like UI, why would they ever switch to something else?
The bottom line is, either you do want to learn, or you don't.
The back button doesn't work too well if you haven't come from a specific directory.
The path pulldown doesn't work when using the finder to ftp.
Command up-arrow? Wow. A keyboard command which is, of course, obvious to someone who doesn't regularly use it.
Again, while there are other ways to go up one directory, there's no button for it. You can't even customize the toolbar to do it. (At least not in an obvious way.) Just because it CAN do the same thing doesn't mean it's always as handy. It's NOT an "up on directory" button.
I never said OS X couldn't go up one directory, I just said there was no button to do it explicity.
"Tell them what? That OS X beats a shoddy imitation of MS Windows hands down?"
You know, I just get really sick of shit like that being said. I've always been one for, "Use whatever works." and as such have been platform/program/desktop environment/window manager/OS agnostic for a long time.
Even if KDE is a "shoddy imitation of MS Windows" at least it "imitated" the "up one directory" button unlike certain other frustrating as hell file managers.
My girlfriend uses OS X and she loves it. I use KDE and I've been very, very happy with it for months. They both work. They both work well. For what I do, KDE is great.
I just think it's really poor taste to shit all over other people's hard work just because you're an elitist asshat. I *like* OS X, but I think it's very, very overrated. OS X is far from the holy grail of the UI too, just check google for the number of Mac users that loathe the new finder.
It's good and it has people who like it but come on... you can't make a "perfect" UI any more than you can make a "perfect" dinner or a "perfect" book.
Am I the only one that doesn't care about appending a few extra years of life on if I have to do crap like eat a raw food diet. I mean geez... there's more to food than simply surviving.
Snow peas, sunflower seeds and lentils!? Yeah, sign me up for that shit.
Yeah... I remember when I saw "Gods and Generals" and, while I really liked the movie I couldn't get over the fact that Jeff Daniels had OBVIOUSLY aged over the last ten years (not that I'm blaming him, mind you). This movie happened chronologically before Gettysburg but Daniels looks older (and a bit chunkier) in Gods and Generals. It was really distracting. (Almost as much as changing actors for Robert E. Lee! Although I did like Robert Duvall much better.)
Is there some greater point to acquiring a taste of anything? I mean, it might just be me but if I don't like it, I'm not going to drink it until I do. Take poop for instance... I don't put it in my mouth or figure out whether it has a "corny" or "chili" flavor to it.
I don't recall simply because I started Gnome using Midnight Commander and by the time I'd started using it again... it was using the "new" Gnome philosophy.
I don't so much mind because I have a lot of choices and, to be honest, I really, really liked Xfce4 and would probably still use it if it's file manager wasn't pure ass.
Konq is the primary reason I use KDE. I really, really like it and it's a pain to use in other environments.
I think you're dead on. When I first installed Gnome and KDE my first order of business was making my environment familiar and I had come from a Windows background. I played with Gnome and KDE on spare boxes for a couple of years until finally making it my primary OS about a year ago.
Ever since then I'll check out the new features and bump around the control center and what have you to see what they've got. Over time things have morphed into a hybrid of Windows, a bit of Mac and KDE's own features. It keeps changing and when KDE 3.2 finishing compliling tonight there are sure to be more changes.
The nice thing about most Linux GUI setups is that there's a lot you can change. It can be as Windows or unWindows as you want to make it. Hell, KDE even asks you with it's opening Wizard what Look and Feel you prefer.
You're like the third person that replied to the parent mentioning MS Powertoys and by mentioning it you completely missed the point. The mentioned features DO SHIP with Gnome/KDE and NOT Windows. Yes, you CAN add them, but the entire point of what he was saying dealt with "standard features" and he was simply refuting that Gnome/KDE were always playing "catch up." In those arenas, they're ahead.
For just about any lacking feature in any major GUI on any major platform there is some sort of external or third party app for X feature. However, the moment it is third party, it's no longer a "standard feature."
Am I on another planet or have I just always been lucky in Linux? ctrl+x/c/v never fail and there's usually an edit menu for them too and they work. Highight + middle click is also nice, but I can think of ONE instance where I have ever needed it. (That's kopete's XML edit thing for changing the layout of message windows.)
Since fiddling with Redhat 5 and AfterStep (I think?) way back when cut/copy/paste has been simple enough.
I kinda liked Epiphany when I first installed it. I was like, "Hey, this is nice and clean and much quicker than Mozilla. I think I even like this look better than Gaelon... now let's see here, I'll just right click the toolbar and get rid of these unnecessary text labels. I'm so close I can almost taste the web." *click* *click* "Errrr... I'll just right click the toolbar and get rid of these unnecessary text labels." *click* *click* "WTF? Okay, I'll open up the preferences and... and... WTF?"
On the other hand I can't count the number of times my dad has accidently "customized" something with a right click and a context menu and he's not a control freak about his desktop like I am. Honestly, I like Gnome. I just found myself using so many KDE apps (I love Konq as a browser and a file manager and an FTP client) and launching that stuff inside Gnome got to be a pain.
I think that both had their place and while *I* like a lot of options, I know that among many people I do work for, less is better. That's just one less thing they can screw up. I've said it before and I'll say it again... this is why choice is a really, really good thing.
I'm glad my group of friends is not the only collective that just found something really, really unnerving about those pants. I remember when we went to see Spawn with it came out and we agreed that if Satan made an appearance he'd split from his demonic form and reveal that his true form was David Bowie in THOSE pants (and the hair too...).
It's easy if you are aware of the "~/.fonts" directory... but the whole idea of the control center is to create a simple layer of abstraction between the user and configuration files and/or most directory structure. I root and drop my fonts somewhere globally so all users have access to them but... if my dad were to install a font he'd use an applet just like he does in Windows whereas I would just drop them in C:\WINNT\FONTS.
Yes, but for little kids who have a really hard time with abstraction, LOGO is excellent. LOGO was the first language I learned even though I didn't even realize what I was doing was programming. I thought I was just drawing. However, I was drawing via an instruction set rather than free handing. Mind you I was about 7-years-old when I picked up LOGO.
LOGO is not for building applications, it's for teaching kids how to give a computer instructions. I've been tutoring some kids in HTML and CSS, ages 12 and 8. I forgot how much harder it is at that age to think in abstractions. When I try to explain broad concepts rather than concrete specifics, they have trouble following. That is why LOGO is excellent for what it was designed for.
There might be a couple kids that age that could learn assembly, but odds are most simply aren't developed enough to get it. Your mind simply isn't normally designed to operate at that level at that age. LOGO works there because the tasks are very specific with results a kid can see and understand.
I cannot believe you got modded "insightful" for making a statement like, "LOGO is primarily marketed towards educational institutions. It is hardly ever the language of choice in the world of business."
Well no kidding. Incidently, carrots are vegetables and not fruits.
Slashdot Mirror
My friends and I take our old drives out for target practice. Some .357 and .308 usually do the trick. If someone can get my chat logs off of that then more power to them.
That's what I call a format.
That and, in all honesty, if you're in a Qt environment in Linux then odds are you're also running KDE and thus have a nice helping of Konqueror.
And yeah, the Flash plugin is ass. What ticks me off is that using Crossover Office to use the Windows plugin works much better than the "native" Linux one.
I don't mind IE losers like yourself with no consideration for other browsers/devices because you're effectively going to be a dinosaur soon, assuming you aren't already. Developing with web standards is more than simply getting things to look right in every browser. It is a matter of making your content available to multiple platforms and devices.
Other devices hitting the web are going to get more and more common and as that demand grows, so will the demand for people who develop to standards. The web is moving its focus away from browsers more and more as time goes on. When 10 - 20% of the users are hitting you from a PDA or a cell phone, or some other device (like a voice reader in their car) the "IE Only" thing ain't gonna work. I'm not saying there's going to be a PCless future anytime soon... but other devices are getting more and more sophisticated.
Besides, being a web developer that can get things working well in multiple Browsers and to standards is what seperates a pro from well... an asshat like yourself. I'm glad people like you exist... because when clients get disgusted and fire you, they're willing to pay me more.
And as for you "95%" of the users... try 80 - 85%. I don't know how many people/companies are going to hire some guy that says, "Eh... I'll alienate 15% of your potential customers just because it's easier for me that way. Who cares about non-Microsoft users anyway? I mean... do those people even have money?" Furthermore those 15% often include the disabled with special devices. Alienating them is *always* good for company PR. Again, your kind is a people I like to call "Job Security" for myself.
His thoughts contradict Joseph Smith's.
"You'd think that something so ignorant would come from days like those of the civil war."
Oh yes. I forgot. In 1954 the United States was a racial accepting place where people like Martin Luther King Jr. lead quiet lives and had no work in front of them to equalize things.
Again... being LDS is nothing special concerning racism. Mark E Peterson was living in a time where Southpark's "Operation Human Shield" comprised of blacks wasn't a joke, it was standard operating procedure.
You cannot remove a statement from the era it was spoken in. Now if you can find a modern apostle saying something similar in a modern conference, please let me know.
"Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and ruin, infamy and shame.
.
"Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress.
"Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings; for 'an hour of virtuous liberty on earth is worth a whole eternity of bondage.'" -- Joseph Smith, 1844
Real racist there. I mean geez. If you're gonna condemn the Mormons you should condemn anyone that accepts the Old Testament as scripture. Gimme a break. For every racist remark I could list one contrary. What it shows is that a collection of weak men in a country that was, more as less, built up by a majority of racists.
Please try not to remove the era from the statements. Brigham Young lived in a time where half of America didn't even view blacks or indians as human. They were considered subhuman savages. How is his view any different from that of Joshua or Moses who would go in and butcher those who weren't members of "The Tribe."
The LDS prophets, even to those who believe that they are divinely inspired do not claim their perfection in any way.
Of course the church was full of racism. It was formed by a huge collection of hicks in pre-civil war America. America was still segregated into the mid-twentieth century and racism still abounds.
To point to the LDS Church as anything special in the world of racism is ridiculous. Was it riddled with racism? Yeah. Is it still? To some degree. Is it a lot different that dozens of other Christian organizations? Not really.
"Why do the American Indians have dark skin? It's because they were evil and wicked.... That's not bigotry is it?"
How often, in the Bible, are the sins of the fathers answered on the heads of the children and on to further generations? This concept is also not specific to being LDS. Furthermore there are plenty of Christian sects (and I don't count the modern, pop-culture Christians who have created a religion that is ignorant of its own history) that believe the blacks are the descendents of Cain. Again, nothing specific to being LDS.
Oh yes, and as for the American Indians with dark skin, if you read the actual text of the Book of Mormon you would know that in the last days they are to be one of the most blessed peoples of earth and that in the days after Christ were among the most righteous on earth.
The LDS church never was and still isn't anymore racist than the country it was born in. No matter what the doctrine of a belief, it's always affected by the cultures it operates in, for better or for worse. Give credit where credit is due.
Brigham Young was a racist. It was wrong. However, I don't see you up in arms making the same statements about George Washington or...
Most of us here have grown up in a post civil rights movement world. Racism in the general public is *finally* viewed as a bad thing. How different would you or I be if we were born into a culture that told us people with dark skin were lesser beings? I don't mean just our immediate family, but the guy at the grocery store, our school teachers, the people we worked with, etc.
Brighman Young lived in a country where it was the "in thing" to shoot Native Americans. You can say, "Oh! That's racist and wrong! How could anyone ever do such a thing!?"
Take your own family tree back 150 years and I'm sure your family faired no better than most Americans (assuming your family was here back then). Again, the point here is to look at context. That much beloved First Amendment that we love to scream about here at Slashdot was written by a bunch of racists who lived in a completely different world than you and I. Cut'm some slack.
I was excited when PM came out, I really was. After seeing it, I was still excited. Problem is, when I really thought about it, the only thing that I could remember was the damn lightsaber battle at the end. (Which, in my mind, at least justified the movie because that's my primary interest in Star Wars, lightsabers.) Oh yes and I could also remember that I fucking hated Jar-Jar. Some people said, "He was there for kids." You know what though? He was there for *retarded* kids. The kids I knew that went even thought he was just lame.
The second one I liked better, but the thing that killed me was that for every scene I really loved, there was another scene that made me squirm in the seat in the theatre. Every time Anakin spoke was one of those instances. I know Star Wars is capable of entertaining romance... they did it with Han and Leia. What, did they just forget? Anakin and Padme was just... bad. Really bad. It was flat. It was awful. It made me ill.
The only thing that makes me excited about the next movie is that it's Star Wars. If these movies weren't Star Wars they'd be just another expensive, glitzy movie that, while entertaining, isn't much else. Mind you, the reason the movie is capable of making me feel discomfort at the same time is because it's Star Wars. So it all balances.
Really, it's my childhood connection to these movies that does anything for me that any other action movie wouldn't do. While I want to see the third movie, I'm not expecting much except that I hope the lightsabers dueling is used through the whole movie and cuts out as much talking as possible.
Also, it can't end like The Matrix did so there's another plus too.
Yeah, I felt like I lost something when 3rd came out too. No more fucking THAC0! I miss it in the same sense that I would miss a huge black boil removed from my ass by a local physician.
Btw: one of the tenets of user interfaces is: if the user requires a manual, then the interface has failed in its task.
That is a stupid tenet or at least it's incomplete. Photoshop has a good user interface. It's easy to learn and you can do simple things with no documentation. However, you still a need a manual to do a lot of cool things.
One of the biggest problems here is a lot of people say, "A compute is a tool, like a hammer. Who needs a manual to use a hammer?" To use a hammer properly, you have to learn. It's not as simple as look and smack. And on the subject, what kind of hammer should you use when framing vs masonry vs finishing vs drywall? Yeah, any Joe-schmoe can grab one of those five dollar Walmart specials and put nails up for hanging pictures but this guy isn't going to go out and do framing. (You'd use a framing gun for that nowadays anyway.)
If a user needs a manual to complete obvious tasks, then the user interface is flawed. But just becuase a manual is necessary is often a statement of complexity rather than a statement of a good UI. Yeah, you might not need a manual to hammer a nail in to hang a picture but you need a manual to hook up a framing gun to an air compressor and lay frame for a house, period. Building codes and regulations don't beam in to your head from the sky. They aren't self evident.
No matter how "intuitive" an email client is you still have to figure out what your "incoming server" is and whether it's POP or IMAP.
We need to stop comparing computers to appliances and simple tools. They're not simple. Cars, I think, draw the best comparison. The interface is pretty simple and intuitive I think. However, to really go anywhere you have to learn traffic laws or you won't be able to be very productive with a car. And if you're a more sophisticated driver like, a racer, you have to learn to drive manual. It's less "intuitive" than an automatic but it's superior for a number of things. Ease != Better
This has turned into a general rant about stuff I've read on this topic. So yeah... do I offer any solutions? Make what needs to be obvious obvious. After writing a piece of software, have your dad try it out and see how he handles it.
Yeah... that bugs me too. As far as I know Ep. I is 30 years prior to Ep. IV. Obi-wan didn't age well.
There's one serious flaw in your logic. If someone is going to give up on Linux because they can't deal with the UI then if they have a Windows like UI, why would they ever switch to something else?
The bottom line is, either you do want to learn, or you don't.
Pretty much. My parents are using Linux. Why? They have a home grown sysadmin. My dad says, "I need a program that does some task." I then install it.
You know what? Windows was the same way. And if I had a Mac, it'd be the same way,
The back button doesn't work too well if you haven't come from a specific directory.
The path pulldown doesn't work when using the finder to ftp.
Command up-arrow? Wow. A keyboard command which is, of course, obvious to someone who doesn't regularly use it.
Again, while there are other ways to go up one directory, there's no button for it. You can't even customize the toolbar to do it. (At least not in an obvious way.) Just because it CAN do the same thing doesn't mean it's always as handy. It's NOT an "up on directory" button.
I never said OS X couldn't go up one directory, I just said there was no button to do it explicity.
And ummm... You'RE (as in, you ARE) a fool.
"Tell them what? That OS X beats a shoddy imitation of MS Windows hands down?"
You know, I just get really sick of shit like that being said. I've always been one for, "Use whatever works." and as such have been platform/program/desktop environment/window manager/OS agnostic for a long time.
Even if KDE is a "shoddy imitation of MS Windows" at least it "imitated" the "up one directory" button unlike certain other frustrating as hell file managers.
My girlfriend uses OS X and she loves it. I use KDE and I've been very, very happy with it for months. They both work. They both work well. For what I do, KDE is great.
I just think it's really poor taste to shit all over other people's hard work just because you're an elitist asshat. I *like* OS X, but I think it's very, very overrated. OS X is far from the holy grail of the UI too, just check google for the number of Mac users that loathe the new finder.
It's good and it has people who like it but come on... you can't make a "perfect" UI any more than you can make a "perfect" dinner or a "perfect" book.
The fact that you got modded "insightful" is sad.
Am I the only one that doesn't care about appending a few extra years of life on if I have to do crap like eat a raw food diet. I mean geez... there's more to food than simply surviving.
Snow peas, sunflower seeds and lentils!? Yeah, sign me up for that shit.
Yeah... I remember when I saw "Gods and Generals" and, while I really liked the movie I couldn't get over the fact that Jeff Daniels had OBVIOUSLY aged over the last ten years (not that I'm blaming him, mind you). This movie happened chronologically before Gettysburg but Daniels looks older (and a bit chunkier) in Gods and Generals. It was really distracting. (Almost as much as changing actors for Robert E. Lee! Although I did like Robert Duvall much better.)
Is there some greater point to acquiring a taste of anything? I mean, it might just be me but if I don't like it, I'm not going to drink it until I do. Take poop for instance... I don't put it in my mouth or figure out whether it has a "corny" or "chili" flavor to it.
I don't recall simply because I started Gnome using Midnight Commander and by the time I'd started using it again... it was using the "new" Gnome philosophy.
I don't so much mind because I have a lot of choices and, to be honest, I really, really liked Xfce4 and would probably still use it if it's file manager wasn't pure ass.
Konq is the primary reason I use KDE. I really, really like it and it's a pain to use in other environments.
I think you're dead on. When I first installed Gnome and KDE my first order of business was making my environment familiar and I had come from a Windows background. I played with Gnome and KDE on spare boxes for a couple of years until finally making it my primary OS about a year ago.
Ever since then I'll check out the new features and bump around the control center and what have you to see what they've got. Over time things have morphed into a hybrid of Windows, a bit of Mac and KDE's own features. It keeps changing and when KDE 3.2 finishing compliling tonight there are sure to be more changes.
The nice thing about most Linux GUI setups is that there's a lot you can change. It can be as Windows or unWindows as you want to make it. Hell, KDE even asks you with it's opening Wizard what Look and Feel you prefer.
You're like the third person that replied to the parent mentioning MS Powertoys and by mentioning it you completely missed the point. The mentioned features DO SHIP with Gnome/KDE and NOT Windows. Yes, you CAN add them, but the entire point of what he was saying dealt with "standard features" and he was simply refuting that Gnome/KDE were always playing "catch up." In those arenas, they're ahead.
For just about any lacking feature in any major GUI on any major platform there is some sort of external or third party app for X feature. However, the moment it is third party, it's no longer a "standard feature."
Am I on another planet or have I just always been lucky in Linux? ctrl+x/c/v never fail and there's usually an edit menu for them too and they work. Highight + middle click is also nice, but I can think of ONE instance where I have ever needed it. (That's kopete's XML edit thing for changing the layout of message windows.)
Since fiddling with Redhat 5 and AfterStep (I think?) way back when cut/copy/paste has been simple enough.
What would really be nice (and I realize I'm replying by myself) is an initial setting for:
1. Gimp mode. (Secretaries, Parents of Geeks, Sales Reps)
2. Advanced Mode (People that aren't afraid to RTFM.)
I kinda liked Epiphany when I first installed it. I was like, "Hey, this is nice and clean and much quicker than Mozilla. I think I even like this look better than Gaelon... now let's see here, I'll just right click the toolbar and get rid of these unnecessary text labels. I'm so close I can almost taste the web." *click* *click* "Errrr... I'll just right click the toolbar and get rid of these unnecessary text labels." *click* *click* "WTF? Okay, I'll open up the preferences and... and... WTF?"
root@binarypaladin portage # emerge unmerge Epiphany
root@binarypaladin portage # emerge MozillaFirebird
On the other hand I can't count the number of times my dad has accidently "customized" something with a right click and a context menu and he's not a control freak about his desktop like I am. Honestly, I like Gnome. I just found myself using so many KDE apps (I love Konq as a browser and a file manager and an FTP client) and launching that stuff inside Gnome got to be a pain.
I think that both had their place and while *I* like a lot of options, I know that among many people I do work for, less is better. That's just one less thing they can screw up. I've said it before and I'll say it again... this is why choice is a really, really good thing.
I'm glad my group of friends is not the only collective that just found something really, really unnerving about those pants. I remember when we went to see Spawn with it came out and we agreed that if Satan made an appearance he'd split from his demonic form and reveal that his true form was David Bowie in THOSE pants (and the hair too...).
It's easy if you are aware of the "~/.fonts" directory... but the whole idea of the control center is to create a simple layer of abstraction between the user and configuration files and/or most directory structure. I root and drop my fonts somewhere globally so all users have access to them but... if my dad were to install a font he'd use an applet just like he does in Windows whereas I would just drop them in C:\WINNT\FONTS.
Yes, but for little kids who have a really hard time with abstraction, LOGO is excellent. LOGO was the first language I learned even though I didn't even realize what I was doing was programming. I thought I was just drawing. However, I was drawing via an instruction set rather than free handing. Mind you I was about 7-years-old when I picked up LOGO.
LOGO is not for building applications, it's for teaching kids how to give a computer instructions. I've been tutoring some kids in HTML and CSS, ages 12 and 8. I forgot how much harder it is at that age to think in abstractions. When I try to explain broad concepts rather than concrete specifics, they have trouble following. That is why LOGO is excellent for what it was designed for.
There might be a couple kids that age that could learn assembly, but odds are most simply aren't developed enough to get it. Your mind simply isn't normally designed to operate at that level at that age. LOGO works there because the tasks are very specific with results a kid can see and understand.
I cannot believe you got modded "insightful" for making a statement like, "LOGO is primarily marketed towards educational institutions. It is hardly ever the language of choice in the world of business."
Well no kidding. Incidently, carrots are vegetables and not fruits.