If Linux were introducing something like this, you'd be saying it's the bestestest thing ever...
I don't I would be. It's also not a domain as they claim, it looks like it's some evolved Wins/Netbios system. I'll stick to DNS (dyndns services are easy to setup and no chance of name collisions). IPv6 has also been supported in the Linux kernel for many years, nothing new.
Google's offering is a standalone app you need to install, and wasn't available for Linux for a long time. What's with the double standard here
Double standard? People complained when there wasn't a Linux version, claiming that Google was being evil and so on.
partial browser compatability wins over a standalone installed app in my book.
That standalone app runs on BSD/Linux/Windows/MacOSX. That 'partial browser compatability' only seems to work under windows with Internet Explorer.
Maybe I'm just suprised at the reactions b/c I'm a Linux user and can't use most Google apps on release already, but this isn't really that suprising.
I'm using Google browser sync, Google earth, Google Picasa (I use Konqueror more for picture management -- others prefer digikam since it apparently has 'more' features). Google desktop is missing obviously, but one can easily replace that with Kerry...
Come on/. crew, bash it on grounds of something, but being IE only isn't the anti-killer feature here.
Seeing how many places and some users have a zero tolerance to using IE, even under Windows.. Yes, it can be a real anti-killer feature.
I've never had to reboot to install a QuickTime codec
I am utterly amazed you got it working (assuming you're not playing on words there and assuming you didn't do some additional trick) without a reboot, I couldn't.
Then something is seriously wrong with your install.
This is on fresh Mac OS X installs (generally the time when I do install a bunch of codecs) -- I can clearly replicate this issue infront of others.
I doubt something was wrong with my fresh OS X installs from the original discs.
It is possible I was installing them wrong, but then again, how do you go wrong with copying files to/Library/Audio/Plug-Ins/Components and/Library/QuickTime or opening their installers?I've never had to reboot to install a QuickTime codecI am utterly amazed you got it working (assuming you're not playing on words there and assuming you didn't do some additional trick) without a reboot, I couldn't.
The FWA itself is a database driven content managed site.
In other words it's a flash interface to a CMS.
Resize your browser and see how it adds rows and columns to fill up the available space (ie: it's a flash 'liquid layout' )
Generally I'm browsing the web full-screen (F11). I was really annoyed at how the content wasn't already preloaded on the page, scrolling with the interface seemed very unnatural and slow loading because of this (not to mention my laptop fans were at maximum).
Resize your browser and see how it adds rows and columns to fill up the available space (ie: it's a flash 'liquid layout' ) and the content is all being loaded on the fly asynchronously
I still would of rathered a long page with thumbnails that dynamically changed positions (easy todo with basic HTML). Simply because I saw nothing wrong with it, and I still see nothing that innovative or new about this.
now start thinking of how that can be useful for other subjects.
Deviantart? I don't need Flash to make browsing that site unbareably slow and difficult to give out URL references to specific browsing thumbnails I'm looking at.
Dynamic data with realtime responses and monitoring of user input.
I don't consider Flash real time, if it's going to skip trying to show me a animation to display the animation, I also don't see how this is superior to AJAX, which works on far more platforms, browsers, doesn't break UI features.
Would it help if they used a large clunky interface to demonstrate this?
Seems like it's a clunky interface to me. Large? No, a bit too small to read.
Maybe a datagrid with words instead of funky pictures?
It's not as fluid/smooth as Google maps from what I can see -- just click dragging the area.
Also, Don't you know not to browse the web with your sound turned up?
I'm quite happy listening to music when I do things on my computer, not to mention I like to be notified when someone sends me a instant message/e-mail/says my name on IRC. I rarely ever browse flash based websites beyond Google video (lots of interesting speeches/demos are posted there).
That's like keeping your TV volume up while watching the weather channel and then being surprised by a commercial when you change it to a normal station.
I don't own a TV, that issue you mention being one of the reasons.
Doesn't work with tabbed browsing (middle click). Looked at a few website... Click something and it just keeps going into loading loops for a while. I have trouble reading some of the text on those sites and I simply can't do [ctrl] & [+] to increase the font sizes. Not to mention I don't need to see distorted effects to display text on page. I'm not particularly amazed by 360 views of people or objects, quicktime could do this long ago. Nor am I particularly amazed by embedded movies in Flash either. Somehow, some of the sites on there absolutely didn't work for me (using flash 9 beta). Such as "HOW EDISON ARE YOU?" or Adobe's own FWA showcase.
What the heck is it with sounds blurting out too? Don't I get a option to tell it not to play sound instead of it scaring the heck out of me with it's rumbling WHOOSH on my subwoofers?
This is poor webdesign in my opinion, you don't Flash for a entire page. Perhaps for specific elements like doing your 360 views, but the entire page and content? No.
I have high doubts he has ever played with OS X. He didnt even get OS Xs install setup right. Its probably the easiest install setup of any OS out there and has remained pretty much unchanged since OS 8
I take you've never installed MacOS X from scratch either. Completely brand new harddrive, you have to create a partition and toggle it as active -- I never had to-do this manually on a Linux installer unless I wanted to. How the heck a novice user who is new to computers would know to-do that is beyond me.
I agree, I have been very happy with the Linux port.
What the Mac has going for it is Apple's polish on top of FreeBSD's heritage of Unix stability and power
Mac OS X doesn't run on a FreeBSD kernel, it runs on a modified XNU kernel, which is a combination of the Mach kernel with a BSD subsystem. There are also certain threading issues that seem to exist with MacOS X. Now, while this isn't being used in many desktop applications, the areas where MacOS X is supposed to be specialized in... Is generally using audio/video editing software. As such applications usually tend to be heavily threaded they could probably get better performance under a 'true' Linux/BSD system I would imagine.
While having the source is nice it is a rare programmer that will dig into the kernel source.
I've looked at existing implementations of software (like Wine, kdeadmin, kio_http) to learn new tricks -- so pretty much like example code to you.
While having the source is nice it is a rare programmer that will dig into the kernel source.
I agree. Although I'll have to say it would be more common for a programmer to look at a application's sourcecode more than the kernel's. After all, programmers tend to 'write new'/'add to' applications more-so than new kernels.
If a video codec installer told you to reboot, contact the developer immediately and tell him to take that out of the installer.
I tried to use them without restarting, it didn't work. So I'd say it's required.
You do not need to reboot to use newly-installed QuickTime codecs.
Oh really? For example, the vp3 codec and 3ivx codec wouldn't work without a restart (I had the same issue with all codecs). Even though I had made sure all QuickTime processes were killed before trying.
You just need to relaunch any running QuickTime applications.
Only had QuickTime and Camino open, I closed Camino in the end to try to avoid a restart -- nope.
If Safari is SO broken, why was it the first (and still one of the only) browsers to pass the Acid2 test?
That only tests compliance to CSS rendering, not if a browser is broken in some way.
I have been using Safari EXCLUSIVELY for 3 years now, and with the exception of the tax prep service I use, it works FLAWLESSLY with every single website I browse.
I've had issues with the way it replaces graphical form buttons with Aqua elements, completely upsetting the page designs.
And they're free to, although they may need Crossover if they can't get it running under Vanilla wine (heard it runs Photoshop 7, MS Office pretty well).
They do not want to learn GIMP.
Would they prefer Kirta (snapshot) since it's closer in looks and feel to Photoshop?
People want to buy nvidia and ATI video cards.
All my Linux installations have Nvidia/ATi cards.
They do not care about binary blobs.
Neither do I. But the machines that need them, have them. Not like a few mouse clicks made it hard to install.
And they do not want to be educated about how evil closed source is.
Personally I use Linux because I find it the better platform, the fact it's open source had nothing todo with my decision to use the platform. There is none of this freezing up non-sense when I browse network shares (like under windows). There is none of this primitive file manager non-sense that I get under Mac OS X, where I can't even continue copying files across somewhere, just because the connection to the file-share broke. Theres none of this non-sense where I have to edit XML files under MacOSX to edit certain settings (got them all graphically under my Linux installation) and then reboot to see the changes (again, I don't have this under Linux) or even rebooting for stupid codec installations.
Plus, what the hell is it with that stupid terminal command to view/hide hidden files when I want to? Compared to what I use on Linux 'View -> Show hidden files', it's insane.
They will never look at the source. If they did they would never understand it.
Believe it or not, programmers are "people" too.
OS/X gives people the choice to buy the stuff they want instead of hoping that someone will write it.
Linux distributions aren't maintained only by hobbyists, there is a lot of commercial investment into desktop applications on the platform.
Just what percentage of people compile FireFox for Windows?
What percentage of users compile Firefox on Linux? I actually can't even recall a single person doing that -- and I am on quite a few Linux-related channels too.
What is the ratio of source to binary downloads?
Most distros are 'binary distros', in the top ten distros on distrowatch. There is only one source based, and it's number eight on that list.
That's an advantage, I've also not seen such dramatic changes that broke a tonne of applications yet.
That is why OS/X is so easy.
Uhuh.. Go run your Mac classic applications on your new Macintel.
It is the lease open so it is the most stable target.
I'm able to run applications from the early 90s on my Linux installation. Hell, right now I'm running a old unix port of a Z-code interpreter (compiled quite a few years ago) to play some old text adventure games. By the way, my Linux installation has pretty much the latest stable versions of software on it too.
The new GPL 3 is a disaster.
The Linux kernel will not be licensed under the new GPL.
The lack of a stable binary driver interface is also a disaster.
Binary blob drivers are working fine for me.
Even if you where going to require the drivers to have the source available making it easy to install shrink wrap drivers is vital to Linux on the desktop.
Like what? The drivers comming preinstalled on linux systems... Well.. They are. Or ease of installation? Well, if you consider opening your package manager and typing in the search box "ati" or "nvidia" into it (since you're not using a preinstalled linux installation in this case), and click install, must be really tough for the user (not all distros are like this -- But why would you give a complex distro to a novice?).
Until a device maker can stick a CD in the box with a driver they know that the end user can install supporting Linux just isn't worth the trouble.
Like what? Windows? Where you get a stupid driver CD that says, "Designed for windows xp", then you put it into your windows xp sp2 system, and the driver causes bluescreens on every boot and the hardware doesn't work at all? The kind where most novice users will just reinstall windows from scratch, and then some how find out that they need to download the drivers from the manufactorer's website because for reason X it doesn't work with latest service pack? That kind?
Or maybe, we could say for example... wireless devices like wi-fi cards or bluetooth, not bother with the driver CD. Just expect the OS to work with it when you plug it in? Because I prefer that, and that's how my Linux installations pretty much work.
I tend to check the citations on Wikipedia. If there is no citation and I can't find a somewhat reliable source on Google related to the information I'm looking at -- I know I can't trust that information.
These people who ramble on that Wikipedia is inaccurate almost appear to me like they never sat history class in high-school. Where you have to verify your sources.
I've also never heard of citing encyclopedias in research projects, ever. Good-grade coursework, also never seen them cite encyclopedia entries (they may cite information that was cited to on some encyclopedias).
Slashdot Mirror
If I'm installing it wrong, most certainly it wouldn't be working after a reboot.
What about being flagged as a convicted felon? I say flagged, because many people weren't in actual fact.
Mono is one of Novell's projects.
There are people on those platforms that refuse to use IE entirely, they won't be happy either.
I am utterly amazed you got it working (assuming you're not playing on words there and assuming you didn't do some additional trick) without a reboot, I couldn't.
I doubt something was wrong with my fresh OS X installs from the original discs.
It is possible I was installing them wrong, but then again, how do you go wrong with copying files to
You maybe interested to hear about Blue Frog.
According to my research (I googled), HIV will cancel itself out. You're a genius!
Doesn't work with tabbed browsing (middle click). Looked at a few website... Click something and it just keeps going into loading loops for a while. I have trouble reading some of the text on those sites and I simply can't do [ctrl] & [+] to increase the font sizes.
Not to mention I don't need to see distorted effects to display text on page.
I'm not particularly amazed by 360 views of people or objects, quicktime could do this long ago.
Nor am I particularly amazed by embedded movies in Flash either.
Somehow, some of the sites on there absolutely didn't work for me (using flash 9 beta). Such as "HOW EDISON ARE YOU?" or Adobe's own FWA showcase.
What the heck is it with sounds blurting out too? Don't I get a option to tell it not to play sound instead of it scaring the heck out of me with it's rumbling WHOOSH on my subwoofers?
This is poor webdesign in my opinion, you don't Flash for a entire page. Perhaps for specific elements like doing your 360 views, but the entire page and content? No.
And these statistics came from where exactly?
There is none of this freezing up non-sense when I browse network shares (like under windows).
There is none of this primitive file manager non-sense that I get under Mac OS X, where I can't even continue copying files across somewhere, just because the connection to the file-share broke.
Theres none of this non-sense where I have to edit XML files under MacOSX to edit certain settings (got them all graphically under my Linux installation) and then reboot to see the changes (again, I don't have this under Linux) or even rebooting for stupid codec installations.
Plus, what the hell is it with that stupid terminal command to view/hide hidden files when I want to? Compared to what I use on Linux 'View -> Show hidden files', it's insane.Believe it or not, programmers are "people" too.Linux distributions aren't maintained only by hobbyists, there is a lot of commercial investment into desktop applications on the platform.What percentage of users compile Firefox on Linux? I actually can't even recall a single person doing that -- and I am on quite a few Linux-related channels too.Most distros are 'binary distros', in the top ten distros on distrowatch. There is only one source based, and it's number eight on that list.
Or maybe, we could say for example... wireless devices like wi-fi cards or bluetooth, not bother with the driver CD. Just expect the OS to work with it when you plug it in? Because I prefer that, and that's how my Linux installations pretty much work.
I tend to check the citations on Wikipedia. If there is no citation and I can't find a somewhat reliable source on Google related to the information I'm looking at -- I know I can't trust that information.
These people who ramble on that Wikipedia is inaccurate almost appear to me like they never sat history class in high-school. Where you have to verify your sources.
I've also never heard of citing encyclopedias in research projects, ever. Good-grade coursework, also never seen them cite encyclopedia entries (they may cite information that was cited to on some encyclopedias).