Yeah, it's beyond me how people could possibly consider a 20-steps install procedure complicated. Especially when compared to those sissy graphical installers where you can only click your mouse on the stupid options and buttons.
Oh really? How will that package manage to guess all the exact libraries I have installed on my system, with the exact versions and CPU type and so on?
Autopackage is just a tarball with a graphical unpacker, like those auto-unpacking RAR and ZIP packages for Windows.
[..]Gaim-vv devs were all ready to merge into CVS HEAD, but Sean Egan changed all the hooks for voice and video without any notice, all so google's voice chat could be integrated[..]
This is taken SO BADLY out of context, to the point it could be considered FUD. The entire story ran on OSNews and both parties made their position clear, in public. There are even links to the actual discussion on the dev list. Here's the original piece and Sean Egan's response.
I wonder what it would take to make people happy, short of a miracle. Here we have a guy who has working code for voice, and he's willing to commit it even though he's working for Google now (which, incidentally, I think says something about whether he's any good or not). And he's not some alien as he's made out to appear, he's been a part of the Gaim team for quite a while, even wrote a Gaim book.
So he does it, and we'll have voice in Gaim ASAP. He even did it in such a manner so the switch to GStreamer can still be made later when it matures. What else do you want?
That will not happen. Why would an application built over GTK+ and Gnome pick a random application from another, alternative, desktop environment, and base it's functionality on it? Let me say it again: it will NOT happen.
The workaround, however, is to have this master password thing come out as a FDO standard. Once all kwallet's everywhere use the same specs and same files, then you'll be allowed to complain about why Gaim or Firefox or any other Linux application doesn't use it.
Re:Which just goes to show...
on
Hacking Santa
·
· Score: 1
Dammit people. I was going for "troll".
Re:Which just goes to show...
on
Hacking Santa
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
What I don't understand is why it would cost them ANYTHING to support a browser other than IE. Do they really need some IE-ony technology, e.g. ActiveX?
Sometimes a bank makes a choice for the underlying platform *COUGHSAPCOUGH* and they discover too late that the public interface is IE-only. And once they already forked the big bucks and they compare that with the risk of losing a few small accounts, the bottom line comes in disfavor of those customers.
>> And switching banks because of browser compatibility isn't an option for most people.
Big banks are like that. Induvidual customers mean almost nothing to them. If a large bank lost every single customer that used a Mac, it would make no difference to them finacially.
But think of the bad publicity. And I doubt that things aren't going to make the press once a critical number of customers are shunned by an IE-only policy. I've seen cases, you can probably recall some too, and that critical number is not as high as you'd think.
Even a Linux user won't be happy with forking a hundred bucks for a copy of Windows, and partition, and install, and deal with security, just to visit one website a few times a month. What's a Mac user to do, buy an entire separate machine AND jump through the hoops for the same thing? It's just too stupid to ask this of your customers.
You don't want to compare GNOME to KDE to Windows because GNOME and KDE aren't operating systems.
I think it's safe to assume they mean Windows as in the interface, in this case. It's common to use the name to refer to both the OS and the UI, disorienting as it may be.
What I'm saying is that, while terrorist attacks are horrible and despicable, having a "few" people die from terrorist attacks is far better IMHO than giving in to those terrorists who love to murder innocent civilians in cold blood and volunteering to give away our freedoms.
I can't believe how light you make of this. As you said, it's easy to say something like this when you haven't experienced any personal loss yourself. OK, at a theoretical level the above quote is right.
But let's look at it from a practical POV. Furthermore, let's make it preemptive. Let's say you knew ahead of time that a terrorist attack will kill your parents or your wife or your kid daughter, or all of them. Given a chance to stop that, but not Rambo style, but through preemptive measures, such as increased airport security or tapping of personal phonelines, would you take it?
Let's imagine that the FBI comes to you one fine day and says: "Sir, we have reasons to suspect that a terrorist attack will destroy a certain flight. Incidentally, it's the one your entire family is on. In order to prevent it we need to trample the freedom and the rights of several possibly unrelated individuals. We'd like you to decide whether we should do that. And make it quick, we only have 15 minutes before we can act."
What would you do then? Uphold the righteous choice?
They should throw AOL in the mix and then we'll finally get those Shakespeare sonets we've been promised: millions of AOL users typing on Microsoft keyboards while their brains are exposed to MTV "music". Or, worst case scenario, Microsoft gets their own Wikipedia.
But for those of us who are running on modern hardware KDE runs quite well and is far more robust than GNOME.
Some people might object to that. While there's a distinction between window managers and desktop environments, it's also true that you still need a window manager, and whether it's slow or fast will affect your entire desktop experience.
Let's look at some cold fact figures, shell we: Test 1, Test 2. I guess they answer why Gnome seems to have the snappier response.
It's not whining, as many morons happily dismiss it. It's a warning that many things are about to go very wrong with Wikipedia, now that it has finally reached a critical point of awareness:
* The public will stop taking it seriously (you heard the poor idiot who wrote the Seigenthaler entries, he said he honestly thought it was some kind of online game). * Political and business factors will pummel it down any chance they'll get. It may serve to limit freedom of speech, show that open collaboration = bad, and for all kinds of other angles.
That's the sound of TFA's point, missing you by a couple of miles.
Wheredoes responsability fit in everything you've mentioned? Yes, an open wiki is an interesting and useful project. But as long as nobody assumes responsability it's just a game which sometimes goes horribly wrong.
Seigenthaler warned about the kind of wrap Wikipedia will take come next US elections. But zealots of course still keep yapping their mouths happily without caring that this wonderful project they like so much may be the very pretext for more draconic laws limiting freedom of expression.
I think as a collective we've got to get around to doing something about this. Criticisms that Slashdot content, and the overall quality of the website are merrited. I think a boycott is in order here.
Or sabotage. I know, let's/. the Beatles Beatles site. (runs and hides)
Re:Hard to admit, but that is quite clever
on
Sober Code Cracked
·
· Score: 1
Fourthly, you are correct in saying that security is reactionary. It will most likely be nothing more than that. Virus writers already have the upper hand, they always have, and they always will.
The CEO of Intel is absolutely correct. Big surprise, a highly successful businessman knows what he's talking about! [...] The reason is that while everyone would rather spend less money, they regard features as being more important than cost. They gladly pay twice as much for the more powerful and more featureful unit.
Then he has nothing to worry about, right? So then why did he have to even make this statement, eh?
Doesn't the fact that he felt the need to say it kind of negates the very message? Why shout "I don't care, they're just toys!" if you really don't care?
Speaking of picking a standard, what these bodies are doing in respect to the future specs of HTML et al reminded me of the recent ICANN talks in Vancouver. Read it, it's a humorous (albeit said) insight into why decision factors can never seem to agree on anything.
The Flash intro's I "like" best are the ones that put "skip intro" INSIDE the Flash. I'd like to meet some of the people who do them sometime. The mix of Flash skills and sheer stupidity must be interesting, or at least entertaining. Plus, I'd like to see how they react when I say "hello, allow me to introduce you to my pickaxe..."
In other words, nothing in the article couldn't be worked around with a little effort.
Make that a little more effort. Perhaps more than it's worth, but time will tell on that one.
How are you going to make AJAX print well? How are you going to make bookmarks work (ie. an URL with certain components -- GET params and dirs lead to a specific view/state)? How are you going to deal with blind visitors? (more established UI API's have ways to deal with this, but there's barely a peep from the AJAX crowd.) How are you going to make AJAX respect and use the Back/Forward browser buttons?
Bottom line is, AJAX (like frames and so on) is suitable for intranet applications and other dynamic interfaces, where you don't care about bookmarks, strip the browser window of everything except the render area, produce your own print output dynamically, implement your own navigation paradigms, and don't give a rat's ass about disabled people.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, complicated.
Yeah, it's beyond me how people could possibly consider a 20-steps install procedure complicated. Especially when compared to those sissy graphical installers where you can only click your mouse on the stupid options and buttons.
I'm off to wire-start my car now.
Oh really? How will that package manage to guess all the exact libraries I have installed on my system, with the exact versions and CPU type and so on?
Autopackage is just a tarball with a graphical unpacker, like those auto-unpacking RAR and ZIP packages for Windows.
[..]Gaim-vv devs were all ready to merge into CVS HEAD, but Sean Egan changed all the hooks for voice and video without any notice, all so google's voice chat could be integrated[..]
This is taken SO BADLY out of context, to the point it could be considered FUD. The entire story ran on OSNews and both parties made their position clear, in public. There are even links to the actual discussion on the dev list. Here's the original piece and Sean Egan's response.
I wonder what it would take to make people happy, short of a miracle. Here we have a guy who has working code for voice, and he's willing to commit it even though he's working for Google now (which, incidentally, I think says something about whether he's any good or not). And he's not some alien as he's made out to appear, he's been a part of the Gaim team for quite a while, even wrote a Gaim book.
So he does it, and we'll have voice in Gaim ASAP. He even did it in such a manner so the switch to GStreamer can still be made later when it matures. What else do you want?
Or even better, use kwallet :).
That will not happen. Why would an application built over GTK+ and Gnome pick a random application from another, alternative, desktop environment, and base it's functionality on it? Let me say it again: it will NOT happen.
The workaround, however, is to have this master password thing come out as a FDO standard. Once all kwallet's everywhere use the same specs and same files, then you'll be allowed to complain about why Gaim or Firefox or any other Linux application doesn't use it.
Dammit people. I was going for "troll".
Mode parent up +1 Dove Eyed Bambi.
What I don't understand is why it would cost them ANYTHING to support a browser other than IE. Do they really need some IE-ony technology, e.g. ActiveX?
Sometimes a bank makes a choice for the underlying platform *COUGHSAPCOUGH* and they discover too late that the public interface is IE-only. And once they already forked the big bucks and they compare that with the risk of losing a few small accounts, the bottom line comes in disfavor of those customers.
If you're testing against Safari on Linux and Windows, then I think I can perhaps begin to understand the depths of your problems. ;-)
He never said that, check the GP post again.
>> And switching banks because of browser compatibility isn't an option for most people.
Big banks are like that. Induvidual customers mean almost nothing to them. If a large bank lost every single customer that used a Mac, it would make no difference to them finacially.
But think of the bad publicity. And I doubt that things aren't going to make the press once a critical number of customers are shunned by an IE-only policy. I've seen cases, you can probably recall some too, and that critical number is not as high as you'd think.
Even a Linux user won't be happy with forking a hundred bucks for a copy of Windows, and partition, and install, and deal with security, just to visit one website a few times a month. What's a Mac user to do, buy an entire separate machine AND jump through the hoops for the same thing? It's just too stupid to ask this of your customers.
You don't want to compare GNOME to KDE to Windows because GNOME and KDE aren't operating systems.
I think it's safe to assume they mean Windows as in the interface, in this case. It's common to use the name to refer to both the OS and the UI, disorienting as it may be.
Identity thieves will have a long field day..
I second that. The more perfect you consider an identification method to be, the more perfectly you will be fooled by a fake.
I can't believe how light you make of this. As you said, it's easy to say something like this when you haven't experienced any personal loss yourself. OK, at a theoretical level the above quote is right.
But let's look at it from a practical POV. Furthermore, let's make it preemptive. Let's say you knew ahead of time that a terrorist attack will kill your parents or your wife or your kid daughter, or all of them. Given a chance to stop that, but not Rambo style, but through preemptive measures, such as increased airport security or tapping of personal phonelines, would you take it?
Let's imagine that the FBI comes to you one fine day and says: "Sir, we have reasons to suspect that a terrorist attack will destroy a certain flight. Incidentally, it's the one your entire family is on. In order to prevent it we need to trample the freedom and the rights of several possibly unrelated individuals. We'd like you to decide whether we should do that. And make it quick, we only have 15 minutes before we can act."
What would you do then? Uphold the righteous choice?
4 words: Pimp My Ride UK. (shudder)
They should throw AOL in the mix and then we'll finally get those Shakespeare sonets we've been promised: millions of AOL users typing on Microsoft keyboards while their brains are exposed to MTV "music". Or, worst case scenario, Microsoft gets their own Wikipedia.
But for those of us who are running on modern hardware KDE runs quite well and is far more robust than GNOME.
Some people might object to that. While there's a distinction between window managers and desktop environments, it's also true that you still need a window manager, and whether it's slow or fast will affect your entire desktop experience.
Let's look at some cold fact figures, shell we: Test 1, Test 2. I guess they answer why Gnome seems to have the snappier response.
It's not whining, as many morons happily dismiss it. It's a warning that many things are about to go very wrong with Wikipedia, now that it has finally reached a critical point of awareness:
* The public will stop taking it seriously (you heard the poor idiot who wrote the Seigenthaler entries, he said he honestly thought it was some kind of online game).
* Political and business factors will pummel it down any chance they'll get. It may serve to limit freedom of speech, show that open collaboration = bad, and for all kinds of other angles.
That's the sound of TFA's point, missing you by a couple of miles.
Wheredoes responsability fit in everything you've mentioned? Yes, an open wiki is an interesting and useful project. But as long as nobody assumes responsability it's just a game which sometimes goes horribly wrong.
Seigenthaler warned about the kind of wrap Wikipedia will take come next US elections. But zealots of course still keep yapping their mouths happily without caring that this wonderful project they like so much may be the very pretext for more draconic laws limiting freedom of expression.
I think as a collective we've got to get around to doing something about this. Criticisms that Slashdot content, and the overall quality of the website are merrited. I think a boycott is in order here.
/. the Beatles Beatles site. (runs and hides)
Or sabotage. I know, let's
Fourthly, you are correct in saying that security is reactionary. It will most likely be nothing more than that. Virus writers already have the upper hand, they always have, and they always will.
You know, that's one of the things that bothers me the most about security. It doesn't have to be reaction-only.
// hey, watch this!
The CEO of Intel is absolutely correct. Big surprise, a highly successful businessman knows what he's talking about!
[...]
The reason is that while everyone would rather spend less money, they regard features as being more important than cost. They gladly pay twice as much for the more powerful and more featureful unit.
Then he has nothing to worry about, right? So then why did he have to even make this statement, eh?
Doesn't the fact that he felt the need to say it kind of negates the very message? Why shout "I don't care, they're just toys!" if you really don't care?
Speaking of picking a standard, what these bodies are doing in respect to the future specs of HTML et al reminded me of the recent ICANN talks in Vancouver. Read it, it's a humorous (albeit said) insight into why decision factors can never seem to agree on anything.
The Flash intro's I "like" best are the ones that put "skip intro" INSIDE the Flash. I'd like to meet some of the people who do them sometime. The mix of Flash skills and sheer stupidity must be interesting, or at least entertaining. Plus, I'd like to see how they react when I say "hello, allow me to introduce you to my pickaxe..."
They probably mean many people use Linux. You know, no antivirus, no antispyware...
In other words, nothing in the article couldn't be worked around with a little effort.
Make that a little more effort. Perhaps more than it's worth, but time will tell on that one.
How are you going to make AJAX print well? How are you going to make bookmarks work (ie. an URL with certain components -- GET params and dirs lead to a specific view/state)? How are you going to deal with blind visitors? (more established UI API's have ways to deal with this, but there's barely a peep from the AJAX crowd.) How are you going to make AJAX respect and use the Back/Forward browser buttons?
Bottom line is, AJAX (like frames and so on) is suitable for intranet applications and other dynamic interfaces, where you don't care about bookmarks, strip the browser window of everything except the render area, produce your own print output dynamically, implement your own navigation paradigms, and don't give a rat's ass about disabled people.