That is simply bullshit. All punkbuster should need to do is checking all system level routines used by the game (running in LUA) wether they work exactly as advertised. Everything the game can use in LUA, Punkbuster can check in LUA.
I don't know about the U.S. but here in germany you only get a driving license when you know all the important (read: day-to-day) maintenance stuff about a normal car.
The difference is that you can do lots of things on the web without client-side scripting while you can not do anything with an OS that does not run executables.
It depends. I usually refuse to open pages saying that my browser is too old (newest opera version, UA-String Opera) or that this site can only be viewed with IE and I usually hate pages (and don't return) when they have a bloated layout that doesn't render nicely in Opera since IE is not an option in Linux and rebooting for a dumb webdesigner isn't either.
My theory about Firefox and Opera user counts is that Firefox users are mostly zealots that blindly believe when they are told Firefox is already a good Browser (are tell it themselves because they want it to be). This kind of people will of course spend more of their time telling people how nice it is and try to convince them to use it too. And since most people without an opinion in this area are IE-users it is of course better (everything is better than IE).
Opera users use a browser with ready-to-use all useful features included (and not many unneeded ones) probably because they are pragmatic about the issue. This kind of person doesn't go out and tells everyone and their dog how good the software they use is, they just use it and do something useful in the time they save by not configuring Firefox Extensions new after each minor update and not advocating their browser all the time.
So as a conclusion the word of mouth effect for Firefox is much higher even though the browser is much less useful.
I think it would have been downright shocking had he said that he felt Firefox was great and was well poised to take over the market. You only get that level of honesty from someone who doesn't have a stake in the game.
I like Free Software as much as the next zealot but calling Firefox great isn't honest. It is on the right track to become great one day but at the moment it has some serious performance and usability problems left (which is not surprising considering how young the project still is).
By comparing Windows and Opera you have just provided proof that you are either a zealot or you have never used opera. Opera is a really good example how commercial software should work. They have prices that are more than okay for one of the pieces of your PC you use most and they actually try to put all the useful features in their product (not just flashy UI re-designs like windows) and fix the bugs and problems reported by their customers. Microsoft Windows however...
You might want to actually try it some time. There are worlds between Firefox and Opera both in speed and actually useful features. Extensions are a nice concept in theory but they have a long way to go until they reach the usability of Opera.
Actually Webmasters thinking like you lead to the problem in the first place. Neither webmasters nor the browsers should work around and tweak for specific instances of the other, they should just both use the standard.
Actually Mozilla isn't totally innocent. Netscape is at least as guilty of inventing new "features" back in the last browser war as Microsoft is and due to the incompatible features of that time some sites started to require one specific browser which lead to Opera identifying as IE.
If you want to test a wether a car rolls down a hill when you remove the brakes, do you have to contact the board computer to see it moving or would it suffice for the board computer to automatically remove the breaks?
On Mac OS X I find people who've never used computers or even don't like computers doing the initial setup themselves.
Lets see how that works out once OS X gets out of the hardware "playground" into the real world with a bazillion different vendors for each component of your PC.
The exact name is usually (with very few exceptions) something like "programname.conf" or a directory named "programname". What is so difficult with that?
I am curious: Is it possible to simply copy the config files to another machine so you won't have to do the same config over and over again like it is in Unix/Linux? That is the worst disadvantage with GUI configuration IMO.
As an answer to both of you I can only say that there are Linux distros out there that don't have the beginner in mind when designing their user-interfaces. Did it ever occur to you that good interfaces are not necessarily the same for every type of user?
Slashdot Mirror
I believe this is not a religious problem but the ever increasing american problem of sueing anyone in sight for any reason.
That is simply bullshit. All punkbuster should need to do is checking all system level routines used by the game (running in LUA) wether they work exactly as advertised. Everything the game can use in LUA, Punkbuster can check in LUA.
I don't know about the U.S. but here in germany you only get a driving license when you know all the important (read: day-to-day) maintenance stuff about a normal car.
You couldn't slashdot your server without JS? I doubt /. would have a problem with that one...
The difference is that you can do lots of things on the web without client-side scripting while you can not do anything with an OS that does not run executables.
News just in from Italy: Buying bread supports the Mafia
It depends. I usually refuse to open pages saying that my browser is too old (newest opera version, UA-String Opera) or that this site can only be viewed with IE and I usually hate pages (and don't return) when they have a bloated layout that doesn't render nicely in Opera since IE is not an option in Linux and rebooting for a dumb webdesigner isn't either.
My theory about Firefox and Opera user counts is that Firefox users are mostly zealots that blindly believe when they are told Firefox is already a good Browser (are tell it themselves because they want it to be). This kind of people will of course spend more of their time telling people how nice it is and try to convince them to use it too. And since most people without an opinion in this area are IE-users it is of course better (everything is better than IE).
Opera users use a browser with ready-to-use all useful features included (and not many unneeded ones) probably because they are pragmatic about the issue. This kind of person doesn't go out and tells everyone and their dog how good the software they use is, they just use it and do something useful in the time they save by not configuring Firefox Extensions new after each minor update and not advocating their browser all the time.
So as a conclusion the word of mouth effect for Firefox is much higher even though the browser is much less useful.
By comparing Windows and Opera you have just provided proof that you are either a zealot or you have never used opera. Opera is a really good example how commercial software should work. They have prices that are more than okay for one of the pieces of your PC you use most and they actually try to put all the useful features in their product (not just flashy UI re-designs like windows) and fix the bugs and problems reported by their customers. Microsoft Windows however...
You might want to actually try it some time. There are worlds between Firefox and Opera both in speed and actually useful features. Extensions are a nice concept in theory but they have a long way to go until they reach the usability of Opera.
Actually Webmasters thinking like you lead to the problem in the first place. Neither webmasters nor the browsers should work around and tweak for specific instances of the other, they should just both use the standard.
Actually Mozilla isn't totally innocent. Netscape is at least as guilty of inventing new "features" back in the last browser war as Microsoft is and due to the incompatible features of that time some sites started to require one specific browser which lead to Opera identifying as IE.
qed
Firefox Advocates are not exactly known for sparing other "small" Browsers critizism either...
And all of you have no idea how flawed this analogy is...
If you want to test a wether a car rolls down a hill when you remove the brakes, do you have to contact the board computer to see it moving or would it suffice for the board computer to automatically remove the breaks?
a) I fully agree with you that usability is not the same for every user group
b) I don't think KDE-users really qualify as hardcore geeks
The exact name is usually (with very few exceptions) something like "programname.conf" or a directory named "programname". What is so difficult with that?
So you say putting work into something that disappears a short while later is not losing?
I am curious: Is it possible to simply copy the config files to another machine so you won't have to do the same config over and over again like it is in Unix/Linux? That is the worst disadvantage with GUI configuration IMO.
Actually using the traditional break key-combo (was that even in DOS) for copy is a really broken way of doing copy...
As an answer to both of you I can only say that there are Linux distros out there that don't have the beginner in mind when designing their user-interfaces. Did it ever occur to you that good interfaces are not necessarily the same for every type of user?
Easy: Linux supports most of your hardware (as indicated by the working programs to use it), the BSDs do not.
So what is the OS? Just the kernel? The minimum needed for a clean boot? Everything that happened to come on the vendor-CD?