"Perhaps the biggest benefit of this particular example is the bandwidth savings:
* Savings per page without caching the CSS file: ~2KB per request
* Savings per page with caching the CSS file: ~9KB per request
Though a few KB doesn't sound like a lot of bandwidth, let's add it up. Slashdot's FAQ, last updated 13 June 2000, states that they serve 50 million pages in a month. When you break down the figures, that's ~1,612,900 pages per day or ~18 pages per second. Bandwidth savings are as follows:
* Savings per day without caching the CSS files: ~3.15 GB bandwidth
* Savings per day with caching the CSS files: ~14 GB bandwidth
Most Slashdot visitors would have the CSS file cached, so we could ballpark the daily savings at ~10 GB bandwidth. A high volume of bandwidth from an ISP could be anywhere from $1 - $5 cost per GB of transfer, but let's calculate it at $1 per GB for an entire year. For this example, the total yearly savings for Slashdot would be: $3,650 USD!
Remember: this calculation is based on the number of pages served as of 13 June, 2000. I believe that Slashdot's traffic is much heavier now, but even using this three-year-old figure, the money saved is impressive."
Don't get me wrong, I do understand the reason for having the menus there currently and that there's a definite hurdle to get over trying to remove them, it's just something that bothers me personally. I guess I've just really fallen for the Mac way of things where there's always that toolbar at the top of the screen until you fully quit it. That does have it's own issues, though, especially with regards to multi monitor setups.
As for your other arguement, I realize that there are other applications out there that could use some interface improvements (I really like vi by the way), but this discussion is specifically about the GIMP. There's no reason to bring other annoying software into the debate unless as an example of why an idea may not work that well.
The problem you raise is valid, but I still think it's the better solution. That's pretty much standard behavior for that type of application. It's exactly how photoshop works and I've never heard a complaint about it. The easiest way to address it is just by hitting tab and hiding all the palates. Unfortunately GIMP doesn't support that function at the moment, but it certainly could.
You shouldn't have to rely on the "hide others" functionality, though. In a program with complex windowing like the GIMP, it really should do a lot of the management on it's own. I really dislike "hiding" windows in OS X, because it's easy to forget what you had open with no icon in the dock.
Unfortunately, on windows at least, I'm still stuck with 8 or 9 separate taskbar buttons when there really should only be one per document. Why the hell would anyone be working in another program and then decide they want to switch to the history palate? If I'm going back to the gimp, I want the whole damn thing to come back up, not just one toolbar. At this point, after going to another program, I have to either alt-tab through all the palates (which doesn't always work) or select them all in the taskbar and then go back to the document. That's a freaking ridiculous waste of time.
Along the same lines... why does the tools palate have to have a menu at the top of it? That should be located in a central place as well, like the document's menu bar.
Those annoyances alone are enough to keep me away from the GIMP right now.
The GIMP foundation is specifically asking for opinions on the user interface, this person gives their opinion and you tell them to go hack the source code themselves... Yes, truly brilliant, because we all know that anyone on slashdot knows every programming language and has all the time in the world to make any software they use do whatever they want.
There are many times to be annoyed when people bitch about free software. This is not one of them.
Go talk to some people that actually use Photoshop professionally doing more than a few filters and effects. Every one of them will tell you that they wouldn't switch. Gimp has NOTHING on Photoshop right now.
Commercials are an accepted part of the deal between the customer and the television provider / station. Spam, on the other hand, is a completely unsolicited invasion of privacy. It's also taxing on network providers who give no authorization for it to traverse their network and there is no way to control what the spam is. On TV, you can't get offensive content in advertising. I'm sure, however, you have seen many emails that were far from child safe.
I could go on and on, but if you don't see the difference at this point, you never will.
It's really unfortunate. Java is very useful for certain things, like the afore mentioned uploader applet. I've been learning Java for a while now and I must say that everything just seems to make sense. It feels very clean to me. It's too bad that so many java games and other applets had to be written poorly to make everyone think that java runs like a tortoise.
Do you truly expect Microsoft to account for every problem that could possibly make it into a driver? I wouldn't be surprised to see that sort of behavior coming from a bad driver on any system. I would consider a bad driver being installed as something truly wrong with the system.
From what I've seen, an install without corrupt system files, spyware, etc. on a computer without faulty hardware will not give you trouble with BSOD's. I guess the experience I've had working on hundreds of Windows XP machines at the shop doesn't count, though.
Better, but still not great. What happens when grandma sees that eject icon turn back into a trash can as soon as she lets go of the mouse button? Oh no! I thought I dragged it to eject, but it was really the trash! All my files must be gone!
Ok, sure, far fetched. Apple really should have done something about that metaphor though. They did better in finder where you can hit the eject button next to a drive, though. That's really handy.
How does that have anything to do with the question of whether Yellowtab has access to the source code? They're selling Zeta as their operating system. If I buy it, I expect it to be supported. If they don't have access to the source code they won't be able to support it very well now, will they? More importantly, it would be very possible that it would die after that single release because they couldn't make improvements without access to the source code.
Generally, buying a piece of software from a company that doesn't have access to the code just isn't very bright imo.
Is there a better place to write to by chance? I know that's usually the first step, but with the technological iliteracy that congressman are likely to have, isn't it very possible that they would just skim the letter and throw it away?
There has to be someone else to express concern to in these matters. Someone that will actually have a clue about how large of an impact this type of thing has on the world.
Dear god you've blinded my mind's eye with that description! Why, oh why, must you be so descriptive with your horrible male genitalia focused analogies?
Slashdot Mirror
If I wanted my computer to complain all the time I'd just run windows.
Taken from A List Apart:
"Perhaps the biggest benefit of this particular example is the bandwidth savings:
* Savings per page without caching the CSS file: ~2KB per request
* Savings per page with caching the CSS file: ~9KB per request
Though a few KB doesn't sound like a lot of bandwidth, let's add it up. Slashdot's FAQ, last updated 13 June 2000, states that they serve 50 million pages in a month. When you break down the figures, that's ~1,612,900 pages per day or ~18 pages per second. Bandwidth savings are as follows:
* Savings per day without caching the CSS files: ~3.15 GB bandwidth
* Savings per day with caching the CSS files: ~14 GB bandwidth
Most Slashdot visitors would have the CSS file cached, so we could ballpark the daily savings at ~10 GB bandwidth. A high volume of bandwidth from an ISP could be anywhere from $1 - $5 cost per GB of transfer, but let's calculate it at $1 per GB for an entire year. For this example, the total yearly savings for Slashdot would be: $3,650 USD!
Remember: this calculation is based on the number of pages served as of 13 June, 2000. I believe that Slashdot's traffic is much heavier now, but even using this three-year-old figure, the money saved is impressive."
An AC calling someone on posting AC... I'd call that ironic, but someone would inevitably beat me upside the head for using the word wrong.
My bad, thanks for the corrections. Tab definitely does hide all palates. Sorry bout that.
Don't get me wrong, I do understand the reason for having the menus there currently and that there's a definite hurdle to get over trying to remove them, it's just something that bothers me personally. I guess I've just really fallen for the Mac way of things where there's always that toolbar at the top of the screen until you fully quit it. That does have it's own issues, though, especially with regards to multi monitor setups.
As for your other arguement, I realize that there are other applications out there that could use some interface improvements (I really like vi by the way), but this discussion is specifically about the GIMP. There's no reason to bring other annoying software into the debate unless as an example of why an idea may not work that well.
The problem you raise is valid, but I still think it's the better solution. That's pretty much standard behavior for that type of application. It's exactly how photoshop works and I've never heard a complaint about it. The easiest way to address it is just by hitting tab and hiding all the palates. Unfortunately GIMP doesn't support that function at the moment, but it certainly could.
You shouldn't have to rely on the "hide others" functionality, though. In a program with complex windowing like the GIMP, it really should do a lot of the management on it's own. I really dislike "hiding" windows in OS X, because it's easy to forget what you had open with no icon in the dock.
Unfortunately, on windows at least, I'm still stuck with 8 or 9 separate taskbar buttons when there really should only be one per document. Why the hell would anyone be working in another program and then decide they want to switch to the history palate? If I'm going back to the gimp, I want the whole damn thing to come back up, not just one toolbar. At this point, after going to another program, I have to either alt-tab through all the palates (which doesn't always work) or select them all in the taskbar and then go back to the document. That's a freaking ridiculous waste of time.
Along the same lines... why does the tools palate have to have a menu at the top of it? That should be located in a central place as well, like the document's menu bar.
Those annoyances alone are enough to keep me away from the GIMP right now.
The GIMP foundation is specifically asking for opinions on the user interface, this person gives their opinion and you tell them to go hack the source code themselves... Yes, truly brilliant, because we all know that anyone on slashdot knows every programming language and has all the time in the world to make any software they use do whatever they want.
There are many times to be annoyed when people bitch about free software. This is not one of them.
Until they make you hold their purse in the store. That evens it out pretty well.
Go talk to some people that actually use Photoshop professionally doing more than a few filters and effects. Every one of them will tell you that they wouldn't switch. Gimp has NOTHING on Photoshop right now.
Damn, I bet you wouldn't even notice, would you? Funny, but sadly true.
Don't know if you saw the video or not, but it didn't look to me like it was working very well in the first place. I'd hate to see it fail.
I don't know why anyone would want to delete cookies. They are a delicious delicacy after all.
Commercials are an accepted part of the deal between the customer and the television provider / station. Spam, on the other hand, is a completely unsolicited invasion of privacy. It's also taxing on network providers who give no authorization for it to traverse their network and there is no way to control what the spam is. On TV, you can't get offensive content in advertising. I'm sure, however, you have seen many emails that were far from child safe.
I could go on and on, but if you don't see the difference at this point, you never will.
It's really unfortunate. Java is very useful for certain things, like the afore mentioned uploader applet. I've been learning Java for a while now and I must say that everything just seems to make sense. It feels very clean to me. It's too bad that so many java games and other applets had to be written poorly to make everyone think that java runs like a tortoise.
Do you truly expect Microsoft to account for every problem that could possibly make it into a driver? I wouldn't be surprised to see that sort of behavior coming from a bad driver on any system. I would consider a bad driver being installed as something truly wrong with the system.
From what I've seen, an install without corrupt system files, spyware, etc. on a computer without faulty hardware will not give you trouble with BSOD's. I guess the experience I've had working on hundreds of Windows XP machines at the shop doesn't count, though.
Only if you've got some real issues with the system. Bad drivers, bad hardware... it takes something pretty deep to get XP to bluescreen.
tell application "QuickTime Player"
present front movie
end tell
Better, but still not great. What happens when grandma sees that eject icon turn back into a trash can as soon as she lets go of the mouse button? Oh no! I thought I dragged it to eject, but it was really the trash! All my files must be gone!
Ok, sure, far fetched. Apple really should have done something about that metaphor though. They did better in finder where you can hit the eject button next to a drive, though. That's really handy.
How does that have anything to do with the question of whether Yellowtab has access to the source code? They're selling Zeta as their operating system. If I buy it, I expect it to be supported. If they don't have access to the source code they won't be able to support it very well now, will they? More importantly, it would be very possible that it would die after that single release because they couldn't make improvements without access to the source code.
Generally, buying a piece of software from a company that doesn't have access to the code just isn't very bright imo.
Since when does a PC only use 60 watts of power?? Last I heard, some of the latest pentiums used 100 watts just for the chip.
Is there a better place to write to by chance? I know that's usually the first step, but with the technological iliteracy that congressman are likely to have, isn't it very possible that they would just skim the letter and throw it away?
There has to be someone else to express concern to in these matters. Someone that will actually have a clue about how large of an impact this type of thing has on the world.
Dear god you've blinded my mind's eye with that description! Why, oh why, must you be so descriptive with your horrible male genitalia focused analogies?
You make an interesting point. I hadn't considered the fact that you notice the more savvy users less because they're bothering you less :).