'My mom certainly has no clue that there even IS anything other than IE to use. Most of our mothers probably don't even realize that IE is not "the Internet".'
My mother has been using firefox for 17 days now. She is excited, and her friends are jealous. She is, however, somewhat concerned about giving up a product from a convicted monogamist, but she understands that open-source does not a floosie browser make.
Clearly if you think that vi et al can't handle your feature list starting 'tab completion...', then you are
wrong. One might say that 'you have never used vi, and it shows.'
Personally, I prefer vi, and good heavens I would use emacs ahead of an IDE. But while I refuse to make generalisations, I know I am not alone.
Use a source-based distro and you wouldn't have to "wait" for dependency-burdened updates
Source based distro users still have to wait for the source packages to be created. But then people who would rather compile software than allow experts to compile it for them aren't really going to be bright enough to see things like this.
If you wanted to call fedora 'pants' (which it certainly is) you should have done so.
I can't see how a media player (player, not organiser downloader etc etc) would ever need a graphical user interface. If you can see the UI instead of the film, it is in the way. If you are looking at the UI instead of listening to the music, it is in the way.
A point you illustrate well is that the individual functions of a microsoft-style media player would be far better performed by individual applications in the 'do one thing well' model. For example, I do not want an audio/video application to have to know how to manage lists of thousands of files - it is likely to perform this task poorly since it is not designed for it. A media player should be able to play a media file. (But then giving away the useful stuff was never in their business model).
You are irradiating your food 1 second prior to eating it. Plastic or not, common sense would suggest that this whole process of food preparation is carcinogenic. Apart from being in
bad
taste...
If you want to say something useful, but the only tool you have available in your
cranium is a
mushroom, your content will be
poor.
Yes "vapid" rubbish exists in geocities, yes I am biased against silly proprietary protocols that detract from my browsing experience. But in no way is content completely independent of the tool used to create it, and if you doubt it, re-read the first paragraph of this post.
He/she was not trying to explain anything, he/she was trying to be clever and rude, based on an incorrect assumption. Similar as I imagine your *sigh*ing is. I googled the link, the point was obvious, and would have been painful (and off-topic) to explain.
And actually, now that you raise the point, content is exactly not independent of the tool. Just as incorrect logical derivations are exactly not independent of stupidity. Now make me a cake, here are the ingredients, and here is the kettle you are going to use.
Occasionally, but not exclusively. My browsing needs are met by a number of applications and programming libraries depending on what is needed. There is no best browser. Certainly, I believe that images (lacking in lynx) are massively useful in portraying certain types of web content.
The blind analogy is false, and you have missed the point. A better description would be 'I shall open my eyes when I need to. I shan't get run over by a train, because I shall
hear it coming'.
How to feel like a tit:
Note that 'Flash implies no content' is not the same as 'No content implies Flash'.
So really, 4. Shut the fuck up.
I am asssured that you enjoyed the process.
I flat out refuse to download Flash until Macromedia releases the source code
Having the source code available would not suddenly make Flash a useful technology.
Flash is anti-useful.
It is an excuse for web developers to use eye-candy instead of content (as if they needed one) on their sites. And so continues the gradual and complete dilution of useful content on the internet. The bonus is that it is an effective way of marking a site 'useless' during long and painful web searches.
Future Wine support is a monstrous idea. Releasing a version for Linux makes business sense, but are people seriously considering running Wine just to browse the internet?
I allow for exceptions, but I have seen very few sites which actually use Flash to present useful content in a sensible way. This would, unfortunately, force me to use it. I have seen none recently, because I don't use the plug-in. I flat out refuse.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing stopping you from releasing it. 'Non-Free-BSD' - catchy name, I wonder if it will catch on.
'My mom certainly has no clue that there even IS anything other than IE to use. Most of our mothers probably don't even realize that IE is not "the Internet".'
My mother has been using firefox for 17 days now. She is excited, and her friends are jealous. She is, however, somewhat concerned about giving up a product from a convicted monogamist, but she understands that open-source does not a floosie browser make.
Every nation involved did thing which were, then and now, considered unacceptable.
And ironically, these days we consider ourselves 'more civilised'.
Clearly if you think that vi et al can't handle your feature list starting 'tab completion...', then you are wrong. One might say that 'you have never used vi, and it shows.'
Personally, I prefer vi, and good heavens I would use emacs ahead of an IDE. But while I refuse to make generalisations, I know I am not alone.
Use a source-based distro and you wouldn't have to "wait" for dependency-burdened updates
Source based distro users still have to wait for the source packages to be created. But then people who would rather compile software than allow experts to compile it for them aren't really going to be bright enough to see things like this.
If you wanted to call fedora 'pants' (which it certainly is) you should have done so.
I can't see how a media player (player, not organiser downloader etc etc) would ever need a graphical user interface. If you can see the UI instead of the film, it is in the way. If you are looking at the UI instead of listening to the music, it is in the way.
A point you illustrate well is that the individual functions of a microsoft-style media player would be far better performed by individual applications in the 'do one thing well' model. For example, I do not want an audio/video application to have to know how to manage lists of thousands of files - it is likely to perform this task poorly since it is not designed for it. A media player should be able to play a media file. (But then giving away the useful stuff was never in their business model).
mc - what's wrong with ls, bloat-lover?
what the hell is the average human useful for?
Why should a human have a use? Your insecurities about your personal exploitation in life cloud your thinking. Exist, and be happy.
Yes by all means be an excellent chef, But do it so that you can feed yourself well.
More importantly, try to find yourself a woman who is impressed by who you are, not by what you can do.
You are irradiating your food 1 second prior to eating it. Plastic or not, common sense would suggest that this whole process of food preparation is carcinogenic. Apart from being in bad taste ...
If you want to say something useful, but the only tool you have available in your cranium is a mushroom, your content will be poor.
Yes "vapid" rubbish exists in geocities, yes I am biased against silly proprietary protocols that detract from my browsing experience. But in no way is content completely independent of the tool used to create it, and if you doubt it, re-read the first paragraph of this post.
He/she was not trying to explain anything, he/she was trying to be clever and rude, based on an incorrect assumption. Similar as I imagine your *sigh*ing is. I googled the link, the point was obvious, and would have been painful (and off-topic) to explain.
And actually, now that you raise the point, content is exactly not independent of the tool. Just as incorrect logical derivations are exactly not independent of stupidity. Now make me a cake, here are the ingredients, and here is the kettle you are going to use.
I presume of course you only use lynx to browse?
Occasionally, but not exclusively. My browsing needs are met by a number of applications and programming libraries depending on what is needed. There is no best browser. Certainly, I believe that images (lacking in lynx) are massively useful in portraying certain types of web content.
The blind analogy is false, and you have missed the point. A better description would be 'I shall open my eyes when I need to. I shan't get run over by a train, because I shall hear it coming'.
How to feel like a tit: Note that 'Flash implies no content' is not the same as 'No content implies Flash'. So really, 4. Shut the fuck up. I am asssured that you enjoyed the process.
I flat out refuse to download Flash until Macromedia releases the source code
Having the source code available would not suddenly make Flash a useful technology.
Flash is anti-useful.
It is an excuse for web developers to use eye-candy instead of content (as if they needed one) on their sites. And so continues the gradual and complete dilution of useful content on the internet. The bonus is that it is an effective way of marking a site 'useless' during long and painful web searches.
Future Wine support is a monstrous idea. Releasing a version for Linux makes business sense, but are people seriously considering running Wine just to browse the internet?
I allow for exceptions, but I have seen very few sites which actually use Flash to present useful content in a sensible way. This would, unfortunately, force me to use it. I have seen none recently, because I don't use the plug-in. I flat out refuse.