I concur, I'm pretty much permanently stuck on progressive rock.
Some highlights: The Gathering - AWESOME European band, try If_Then_Else or Sleepy Buildings Opeth - although they are a death metal band, "Damnation" features clean vocals and is classic progressive rock Dream Theather - nuff said. Scenes from a Memory or Train of Thought are great intro CDs Liquid Tension Experiment - instrumental prog. rock. Although extremely pretentious at times, it is a lot of fun to listen to. Give it a whirl.
I am just getting into the genre, I'd love to hear of some other great prog. rock bands. Cheers.
NO! I'm tired of every other application that is coming out recently with 'cool' skinned interfaces. It seems inevitable that every major app that is to appeal to a wide audience has to, in some way, add some freakin gaudy interface elements in order to stand out. Look at the various Office incarnations. Or Nero 6. Or iTunes. It just says something when the look of a program becomes more important than the features.
Skins suck in that they: * often do not respect the user's GUI color scheme * often have custom widgets, which tend not to support the hotkeys that common widgets would support * unnecessarily consume resources * usually redraw slower * usually cannot be disabled in favor of a standard UI, so you end up with users creating skins to match their OS's theme. The very notion of making a skin to make the app fit in with the rest of your desktop is completely asinine. * ignore tried-and-true approaches to usability in the name of aesthetics * are ugly, almost without fail. Whenever they claim a 'graphic designer' was involved, they're usually that much worse.
Case in point: a graduate level CS major I know had this as his Trillian profile: "Aha! I finally figured out how to set my damn Trillian profile!"
When a CS major has trouble navigating your software, you have a usability trainwreck.
I suspect a great many apps have (until recently) just blithely passed commands that have user input into ShellExecute(). Obviously, you can't do that, a fairly clever user can figure out how to get someone else to run a command on their system without their explicit consent. Note that MSDN doesn't mention anything about the possible security implications of it, which is why MS is being blindsided by it. Now, a ton of apps use ShellExecute(), it is the recommended way to launch the correct web browser on a user's system. What I did in my app was before calling ShellExecute(), extract the protocol and compare it against a whitelist of allowed protocols. In my case, I only allowed http, https, mailto, and ftp. If it wasn't one of those four, I just didn't do anything.
It must be illegal or something for Slashdot editors to actually be happy about something. Here they add a few nice features to WHOIS and you're off spouting, "I bet they're just kissing up to the geeks." I mean, seriously, get some counseling or something. The whole world isn't out to screw you over.
While they're at it they should ban anyone with numbers on the end of their name. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT YOUR AOL SCREEN NAME ON EVERYTHING THAT IS LABELED "NAME" FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.
Sorry, I just see someone with a name like DreadNagoigth2819 and wonder, "gee, i'm sure there are 2819 other DreadNagoigth's out there and he just got the next one!" Plus, who can remember that they were gaming with Mike29182381 when Mike394812 messages them asking for cyber at 2am?
Mono is just a choice. You are free to choose Java to develop on. Isn't the OSS world all about choice? No one is 'standardizing' anything. If you dislike.NET immensely, then continue to develop with Java. No one is holding a gun to your head.
The checked exceptions issue has been discussed at length on several blogs, I'll let you investigate that. You failed to address one of the most important points: Java GUIs typically try to imitate their host OS in terms of GUI, rather than allowing the host to do the widget rendering. Yes, there is *WT, but last I heard the Java pundits were crying foul over eclipse using it. Eclipse, the baby of the Java community, and they complain about it not using the 'more elegant' Swing. No one gives a damn if its more elegant if it doesn't even fit with the rest of the user's desktop.
My pet project breaks VS.NET 2003's IntelliSense to the point that sometimes the IDE becomes unstable. Perhaps it is the multiple layers of template instantiation it has trouble following; but regardless I hope they have improved things on this front. At least the compiler doesn't suck as much as it used to.
Then they'd realize there is a sect of users who would love something like this in the US and Europe. People that don't want the damn animated dogs telling them how to search, or Fisher Price UIs. People who aren't afraid to drag out the command prompt to do things and enjoy having options. Hopefully they get the message that there are still power users on Windows, but it certainly feels like an endangered species at times -- many UI innovations are little more than eye candy or making the UI easier for novice users. Meanwhile, most real power users have graduated to OS X or Linux where they don't have to feel like they are being talked down to.
All the bundled crap should be optional. That means I should be able to choose whether to install: * IE, including disabling shell integration. Additionally I should be able to replace IE with an alternative browser that is used through the system, including applications that embed IE through COM. * Media player * Windows messenger
I should be able to fine tune which services are installed and have them explained to me at install time so I know exactly what ports are open. A compiler and build tool for C, C++ and C# should come preinstalled and in the path. You should be able to do anything from the console that you can do from the GUI.
If this seems outlandish, they could have it simply be two alternate modes of setup whereby you select your expertise level. Like, an "Express" install option versus an "Advanced" mode that lets you tailor everything you want.
(I tend to be an MS apologist, but this is one point where they really aggravate me.)
As an aside, the fact that people have to advocate something to me signals that it doesn't measure up in some category. Good products stand on their own merits.
Work on open source projects as if it were a job. It shows initiative and you learn far more than you ever could in school about software engineering and design. Of course, realize that your code is going to speak for itself, so you might not want to do a sloppy job.;)
Seems to me that the most fervent zealots of a particular OS are simply just narrow-minded or don't know much beyond their own little world. You see countless developers (y'know, people who do things) decrying zealots, while the zealots themselves just kinda sit there, making everyone else look bad with their banter, and don't really contribute anything other than fanboyism.
You could always write open source software with it. I do so daily.
Please show me where exactly in the license agreement it forbids the writing of open source software. Respond with concrete examples, not hand-waving proofs.
See, this is ridiculous. We are discussing the fact that the Gimp cannot touch Photoshop.
I am not insulting you or your mother. I am not being offensive or derogatory towards you. I am not making political or religious statements.
What is more, you agree with my conclusion that the Gimp is not a replacement for Photoshop. But instead, you turn the discussion on me. What I possess is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I do not see how operating system choice reflects at all on me as a person. Perhaps you can share some insight, however.
BTW, your post is the archetype of what makes Slashdot's comment section (and lately the news submissions) a joke among the IT community: rudeness, incoherent grammar, typos, fallacy-ridden arguments and rampant groupthink.
Using terminology like "tempts" and the summary implying that you are a better person if you don't boot Windows, once again I am fully convinced that Linux is a religion to far too many people at this site. michael seems like the type of guy that posts every little article he finds on the net that confirms whatever he thinks is true -- "Hey, if its on the Internet, it has to be true!" And when you pat yourself on the back for your choice in an OPERATING SYSTEM then you know you've completely lost touch with reality. I mean, step back a second and look at yourself in the mirror.
Then again, for all these fanboys, it just gives them a bigger cause to live their life for. Hence why I see it as a religion -- it manifests itself as a purpose. They can wake up in the morning and say, "I am making the world a better place by trying to get rid of that EVIL money thing!"
Slashdot Mirror
I concur, I'm pretty much permanently stuck on progressive rock.
Some highlights:
The Gathering - AWESOME European band, try If_Then_Else or Sleepy Buildings
Opeth - although they are a death metal band, "Damnation" features clean vocals and is classic progressive rock
Dream Theather - nuff said. Scenes from a Memory or Train of Thought are great intro CDs
Liquid Tension Experiment - instrumental prog. rock. Although extremely pretentious at times, it is a lot of fun to listen to. Give it a whirl.
I am just getting into the genre, I'd love to hear of some other great prog. rock bands. Cheers.
NO! I'm tired of every other application that is coming out recently with 'cool' skinned interfaces. It seems inevitable that every major app that is to appeal to a wide audience has to, in some way, add some freakin gaudy interface elements in order to stand out. Look at the various Office incarnations. Or Nero 6. Or iTunes. It just says something when the look of a program becomes more important than the features.
Skins suck in that they:
* often do not respect the user's GUI color scheme
* often have custom widgets, which tend not to support the hotkeys that common widgets would support
* unnecessarily consume resources
* usually redraw slower
* usually cannot be disabled in favor of a standard UI, so you end up with users creating skins to match their OS's theme. The very notion of making a skin to make the app fit in with the rest of your desktop is completely asinine.
* ignore tried-and-true approaches to usability in the name of aesthetics
* are ugly, almost without fail. Whenever they claim a 'graphic designer' was involved, they're usually that much worse.
Case in point: a graduate level CS major I know had this as his Trillian profile:
"Aha! I finally figured out how to set my damn Trillian profile!"
When a CS major has trouble navigating your software, you have a usability trainwreck.
Proof positive that Linux is a religion!
Positive. If you think that is the case then seek counseling, cause it sure as hell isn't healthy.
I suspect a great many apps have (until recently) just blithely passed commands that have user input into ShellExecute(). Obviously, you can't do that, a fairly clever user can figure out how to get someone else to run a command on their system without their explicit consent. Note that MSDN doesn't mention anything about the possible security implications of it, which is why MS is being blindsided by it. Now, a ton of apps use ShellExecute(), it is the recommended way to launch the correct web browser on a user's system. What I did in my app was before calling ShellExecute(), extract the protocol and compare it against a whitelist of allowed protocols. In my case, I only allowed http, https, mailto, and ftp. If it wasn't one of those four, I just didn't do anything.
It must be illegal or something for Slashdot editors to actually be happy about something. Here they add a few nice features to WHOIS and you're off spouting, "I bet they're just kissing up to the geeks." I mean, seriously, get some counseling or something. The whole world isn't out to screw you over.
While they're at it they should ban anyone with numbers on the end of their name. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT YOUR AOL SCREEN NAME ON EVERYTHING THAT IS LABELED "NAME" FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.
Sorry, I just see someone with a name like DreadNagoigth2819 and wonder, "gee, i'm sure there are 2819 other DreadNagoigth's out there and he just got the next one!" Plus, who can remember that they were gaming with Mike29182381 when Mike394812 messages them asking for cyber at 2am?
timothy never bothers to read the article, thats just ridiculous!
Or perhaps a misplaced semicolon thingy!
Mono is just a choice. You are free to choose Java to develop on. Isn't the OSS world all about choice? No one is 'standardizing' anything. If you dislike .NET immensely, then continue to develop with Java. No one is holding a gun to your head.
The checked exceptions issue has been discussed at length on several blogs, I'll let you investigate that. You failed to address one of the most important points: Java GUIs typically try to imitate their host OS in terms of GUI, rather than allowing the host to do the widget rendering. Yes, there is *WT, but last I heard the Java pundits were crying foul over eclipse using it. Eclipse, the baby of the Java community, and they complain about it not using the 'more elegant' Swing. No one gives a damn if its more elegant if it doesn't even fit with the rest of the user's desktop.
Does refactoring support unmanaged C++?
This is Slashdot, where any argument that actually makes sense gets modded either to +5 or -1.
I've tried it before, it is okay, the UI looks kind of 'off' from the normal VS.NET IntelliSense though.
My pet project breaks VS.NET 2003's IntelliSense to the point that sometimes the IDE becomes unstable. Perhaps it is the multiple layers of template instantiation it has trouble following; but regardless I hope they have improved things on this front. At least the compiler doesn't suck as much as it used to.
Then they'd realize there is a sect of users who would love something like this in the US and Europe. People that don't want the damn animated dogs telling them how to search, or Fisher Price UIs. People who aren't afraid to drag out the command prompt to do things and enjoy having options. Hopefully they get the message that there are still power users on Windows, but it certainly feels like an endangered species at times -- many UI innovations are little more than eye candy or making the UI easier for novice users. Meanwhile, most real power users have graduated to OS X or Linux where they don't have to feel like they are being talked down to.
All the bundled crap should be optional. That means I should be able to choose whether to install:
* IE, including disabling shell integration. Additionally I should be able to replace IE with an alternative browser that is used through the system, including applications that embed IE through COM.
* Media player
* Windows messenger
I should be able to fine tune which services are installed and have them explained to me at install time so I know exactly what ports are open. A compiler and build tool for C, C++ and C# should come preinstalled and in the path. You should be able to do anything from the console that you can do from the GUI.
If this seems outlandish, they could have it simply be two alternate modes of setup whereby you select your expertise level. Like, an "Express" install option versus an "Advanced" mode that lets you tailor everything you want.
(I tend to be an MS apologist, but this is one point where they really aggravate me.)
As an aside, the fact that people have to advocate something to me signals that it doesn't measure up in some category. Good products stand on their own merits.
Work on open source projects as if it were a job. It shows initiative and you learn far more than you ever could in school about software engineering and design. Of course, realize that your code is going to speak for itself, so you might not want to do a sloppy job. ;)
I don't consider an operating system a conviction. It is a choice of what you run to use your personal computer. Nothing more.
In other words, you are not saving the world by running Linux.
Seems to me that the most fervent zealots of a particular OS are simply just narrow-minded or don't know much beyond their own little world. You see countless developers (y'know, people who do things) decrying zealots, while the zealots themselves just kinda sit there, making everyone else look bad with their banter, and don't really contribute anything other than fanboyism.
Kill em all I say.
Try going outside sometime. You might gain a little perspective. :)
You could always write open source software with it. I do so daily.
Please show me where exactly in the license agreement it forbids the writing of open source software. Respond with concrete examples, not hand-waving proofs.
See, this is ridiculous. We are discussing the fact that the Gimp cannot touch Photoshop.
I am not insulting you or your mother.
I am not being offensive or derogatory towards you.
I am not making political or religious statements.
What is more, you agree with my conclusion that the Gimp is not a replacement for Photoshop. But instead, you turn the discussion on me. What I possess is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I do not see how operating system choice reflects at all on me as a person. Perhaps you can share some insight, however.
BTW, your post is the archetype of what makes Slashdot's comment section (and lately the news submissions) a joke among the IT community: rudeness, incoherent grammar, typos, fallacy-ridden arguments and rampant groupthink.
The worst type of trolls are the ones that speak the truth, aren't they?
Actually, I legally own Photoshop CS and develop open source software. Just because something is free doesn't make it good.
Using terminology like "tempts" and the summary implying that you are a better person if you don't boot Windows, once again I am fully convinced that Linux is a religion to far too many people at this site. michael seems like the type of guy that posts every little article he finds on the net that confirms whatever he thinks is true -- "Hey, if its on the Internet, it has to be true!" And when you pat yourself on the back for your choice in an OPERATING SYSTEM then you know you've completely lost touch with reality. I mean, step back a second and look at yourself in the mirror.
Then again, for all these fanboys, it just gives them a bigger cause to live their life for. Hence why I see it as a religion -- it manifests itself as a purpose. They can wake up in the morning and say, "I am making the world a better place by trying to get rid of that EVIL money thing!"