And yet they have released a version that runs on OS X.
I don't think it's just a simple a port, since so many things differ beyond the UI in the Mac version. I do believe the Mac version of MS Office has it's own seperate codebase.
"Oh nos! Firefox is a horrible failure because it doesn't support 'wordart' features of CSS from a recommendation, not a standard. Any browser that does not support this is surely inferior! This feature is very, very important! For which I have not given any reasonable examples of why it is needed in the first place! I shall ignore anything you say and call you pathetic! Because name calling always wins a argument! My logic is undeniable!"
With the Mac you have tens of millions of computers (fourteen million registered OS X users). Lots of them are running the same software, the same browser, at the same OS rev.
Still have far more Windows users.
Looking at the cost of renting botnets on the grey market those millions of computers represent millions of dollars of revenue, even if you crack just a percentage of them. So the question is why would someone leave that money on the table?
They don't see MacOSX as a relevant target. I some how doubt every malware writer assesses the market share, probably go on with what they know. The other thing is that most botnets I have seen, run on programs which weren't written by the people running the botnets.
The answer is obvious - because it's a lot harder to hack a Mac to use in such a way.
Yeah, no pre-written tools, and today's botnet masters, script kiddies don't create their own tools.
So it's not really numbers that are preventing the serious development of attacks today so much as a stronger security model. This would potentially be true even beyond the 80% marketshare point.
The more popular a system is, the more likely there is going to be someone who owns one be interested in writing some malware for it.
How tedious an apologia. "Standard X is useless. Standard Y is just an enhancement. Sure, Gecko's quirky, but you'll learn to love it, and at least it's well-documented." Are you even aware of how pathetic you sound?
If you actually even bothered to read my replies properly, you would see that most of the points you've been making are mostly FUD.
Seeing how you aren't even bothering making rebuttals to even my points, showing us the real need for 'word art' features (And I suppose you'd want blink tags too). If you want to argue standards, sure, let's see.
w3c makes recommendations, they don't create standards. ISO creates standards. IEEE creates standards.
Looking at the published standards from both ISO and IEEE related to HTML etc. It seems Firefox is in-fact, fully standards compliant. Stop spreading FUD, thankyou.
your beloved Gecko isn't the most standards-compliant renderer after all.
My default browser currently is Konqueror (which uses the KHTML engine, which the code is being used in webkit) by the way. I just don't like people spreading FUD.
Did you even read the Bugzilla page you linked to?
Yes, but you obviously didn't read the specific comment I linked to.
We never break a line at a soft hyphen, and we never display soft hyphens, which is the minimum necessary to follow the semantics:
If a line is broken at a soft hyphen, a hyphen character must be displayed at
the end of the first line. If a line is not broken at a soft hyphen, the user
agent must not display a hyphen character. For operations such as searching and
sorting, the soft hyphen should always be ignored.
-- http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/text.html#h -9.3.3
Documents would look much nicer if Mozilla were smart enough to break lines at soft hyphens. Nevertheless, that's an enhancement, not a requirement.
I wonder if you're aware how glib your pooh-poohing is of the opacity: and text-shadow: properties. As I said, opacity at the very least would allow authors to finally do away with 1990s-era workarounds like serving redundant PNGs based on browser sniffing.
Sorry if I don't see the need for 'word art' on websites.
It's very unimaginative of you to maintain that these properties are useless.
Perhaps not completely useless, but I just don't see the actual need.
Don't even get me started on your inane recommendation to use -moz-inline-block as a buggy, unpredictable workaround for inline-block.
The behavior well documented on mozilla.org's website. I don't see how that's unpredictable.
Perhaps it has escaped your noticed that WebKit is open source.
Yeah, hosted on opendarwin's servers, which are closing down, and haven't fulfilled their mission.
Besides, why would I want to join a team as demonstrably tasteless and unconcerned for comprehensive aesthetics of design as the Firefox development project?
Reading their mailing lists, bugzilla lists etc. tell me otherwise.
You also might want to take a look at Mozilla CSS Extensions because it allows a somewhat better accuracy with CSS behaviour than what w3c has defined in some cases -- This has been very helpful for me when you're doing CSS hacks for Opera.
variable opacity
I hope when Firefox does support this they give you a option to disable it.
Text shadow
This too.
Firefox is probably the least standards-compliant of all modern (non-IE) browsers.
I'm sure they wouldn't reject someone helping them becoming more 'standards compliant' (I prefer to say 'w3c recommendations compliant'), they have, after all, made the tools available to help.
fvwm95 is just a 'look' Window manager (which looks like windows 95).
Unlike GNUStep and MacOSX. It is not based on the same specifications, fvwm95 doesn't have matching APIs available, fvwm95doesn't provide unique libraries that interchangeable with Aero's.
It doesn't even have the same UI guidelines, unlike GNUStep and Aqua. GNUStep is not even a 'window manager'.
The only similarities I can see is between the fvwm95(and Aero) and GNUStep(and MacOSX/Aqua) comparison, is that they both run under X11?
And why would I want to use some crappy unix/linux apps instead of Apple's
Because Apple's often don't work anywhere else, and have document formats locked usually in some secret proprietory format. Locking people into not only their OS, but their hardware platform too.
Apple's GUI is the whole point of OSX!
GNUStep is availible for free platforms, which is a very similar GUI.
Atleast with OSX's MaxOS GUI I would have Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and Quark available.
Yeah, I just *need* to use Adobe software (probably possible under Wine anyway). Not like we don't have alternatives available like GNUStep, kmymoney, krita, kino etc.
Last time I checked, Dell's laptops do not blowup constantly, this was just ONE, that blew up, big boo hoo. I have problems with *ALL* Apple hardware I have ever encountered, not just one.
So, are you an unusually uncreative troll or just stupid?
I hardly think one laptop exploding represents their entire product line. Are you sure you aren't trolling?
By the way, I haven't heard of any "hardware issues" on the Mac Pro. That would be quite surprising, since it only came out 4 days ago.
Every Mac I've been around emits some sort of annoying noise I can hear, eMacs, iBooks, iMacs, Mac minis, Macbook pros (these are the worst -- at least there are many other people that can hear these), Macbooks etc.
Not to mention my 'Macintosh experience' often lead to other issues with the hardware and software that Mac fanatics and Apple like to claim doesn't exist on the platform. Which is why I'm far more crtical on Apple products than any other, they claim they are better.
*Imitating Mr. Spock* Logic would dictate that the next computer they would produce would also have this flaw, unless they made reasonable effort to make sure it doesn't.
Yeah, but does a out-of-the-box PC have the same quality of applications (iLife, iTunes, iCal, Mail.app, etc) with the same level of seamless integration?
That depends on the PC you got, with what OS and with who.
Often Windows systems come with the most popular software, such as Nero burner, Cyberlink DVD player, Photoshop pro, Microsoft Office etc. They might not be very well integrated with each other, but they aren't just some knock off applications either.
On the other hand, we have Linux systems, that generally come with everything (bloated installation unfortunately, but at least that can be changed easily) which includes proprietary drivers/software too (Often the reason why people 'diss' Linux distros for not having on the install cd funny enough).
Then there are those smaller companies, which provide cheaper computers, but are also the minimalists. Probably at most you get is Windows, OpenOffice, Firefox (and other free software) with these.
Does an out-of-the-box Windows PC have the same security as OS X's out-of-the-box security?
I think most newly sold windows computers have somewhat decent security out of the box, they come with anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewalls, while Mac, just comes with a Firewall. Currently it's a bit behind Apple, because users still run as administrators, but that's going to change in Windows vista.
Once again, if I bought a Windows PC, I have to worry about installing anti-malware tools (which is basically a high memory tax), installing Firefox, and keeping up to date with every little Windows update.
Most new computers do come with the majority of those programs (usually Opera instead of Firefox in my experience), and windows update is automated (like the update manager on MacOSX).
As for the high memory-tax, avast doesn't seem to be taking much here.
And don't get me started on Windows default admin mode,
Don't worry, thatll be gone in Vista
lack of full multiuser support
Sorry, no idea what you mean by lack of 'full' multiuser support, example please?
lack of user permissions (that work the same way as Unix permissions)
You do know that POSIX's permissions system is more primitive Windows's. It's why there has been so much work on compatibility hacks with ACLs, trying to get them working nicely on *nix filesysems.
and other stuff
My favorite issue.
Apple doesn't compete on the low-end scale, so that is the reason why PCs are much more common
How about that PCs come from more than just one vendor. I also don't see many low-end scale PCs often. Another interesting thing, is that HERE, where I am located -- the people who know what windows is, have probably heard of Linux, but most have never even heard of a company called Apple.
PCs may be more popular, but there is a reason why Mac users buy Macs.
There's a reason why I still buy Amigas...
It comes with a well thought out package of software that complements each other quite nicely with no hiccups.
In this weeks ads, there were at least 10 laptops (and about 1/2 without the rebate scam) that had the same and more hardware (2GB ram, faster CPU, much better video card etc) then an iMac and roughly $100-600 cheaper if that iMac was similarly equipped. Oh, only $400 more, well that is roughly 35% more and nothing to sneeze at.
(I'm not the parent-parent poster)
I would rather pay more for hardware that doesn't make high pitch noises (I have sensitive hearing) that I can hear and doesn't have a horrible support that won't fix the problems.
Apple care has sent me back non-working hardware telling me it's fixed a few times -- Other times they told me they fixed the problems, and the problems were still there when I got the hardware back.
I purchased the eMac 2 years ago, and with over 1700 USD in repairs (paid for under warranty), it tells me a LOT about quality control at Apple.
I've had very similar issues with Apple hardware in the past. From built in airport cards failing and Apple care refusing to acknowledge it's broken to having hardware too hot to even hold and being reassured this is perfectly normal and that there is 'no problem'.
Nevermind having to deal with Apple's idea of a OS.
It has one of the most horrible file managers I've ever used -- Finder -- I can't even copy-replace files with it, it crashes on various windows fileshares, creates pointless meta data files that really aren't needed on network shares. There isn't even a easy way to view hidden files. Have to start up a terminal and type in secret commands, then killing-restarting finder. Compared to just doing 'view -> show hidden files' under Konqueror, it's insane.
I find a insane amount of settings hidden in configuration files, rather than GUI (compared to KDE which has most of the options availible in some sort of GUI), which depending on what I set, may require that I restart the entire OS.
Theres also a great advert by Apple, about restarts with Mac. I find it annoying that I have to reboot for various software updates, codec installations, compared to your kubuntu installation, this is just annoying.
This is the kind of 'out-of-the-box' expirences I have had with Apple. Which, Apple likes to promote they're so good at -- doesn't seem that much different at all.
I have to say, I'm really enjoying Kubuntu right now.
The first time I looked - it's probably not true any more - the Athlon 64 Mobile plus its chipset had lower power consumption than a Pentium M plus its chipset.
Ah, I wasn't aware of Athlon64 mobile technology, I'll have to look into that (I'm interested in the performance more-so than 64bit though). =)
Slashdot Mirror
The evidence that Microsoft does this and uses that information... Is?
"Oh nos! Firefox is a horrible failure because it doesn't support 'wordart' features of CSS from a recommendation, not a standard. Any browser that does not support this is surely inferior! This feature is very, very important! For which I have not given any reasonable examples of why it is needed in the first place! I shall ignore anything you say and call you pathetic! Because name calling always wins a argument! My logic is undeniable!"
Yeah, no pre-written tools, and today's botnet masters, script kiddies don't create their own tools.The more popular a system is, the more likely there is going to be someone who owns one be interested in writing some malware for it.
Seeing how you aren't even bothering making rebuttals to even my points, showing us the real need for 'word art' features (And I suppose you'd want blink tags too). If you want to argue standards, sure, let's see.
w3c makes recommendations, they don't create standards.
ISO creates standards.
IEEE creates standards.
Looking at the published standards from both ISO and IEEE related to HTML etc. It seems Firefox is in-fact, fully standards compliant. Stop spreading FUD, thankyou.
My default browser currently is Konqueror (which uses the KHTML engine, which the code is being used in webkit) by the way. I just don't like people spreading FUD.
Sorry if I don't see the need for 'word art' on websites.Perhaps not completely useless, but I just don't see the actual need.
The behavior well documented on mozilla.org's website. I don't see how that's unpredictable.
Yeah, hosted on opendarwin's servers, which are closing down, and haven't fulfilled their mission.Reading their mailing lists, bugzilla lists etc. tell me otherwise.
Hold your course Mr. Coward, we must follow them back, repair what ever damage they've done.
Unlike GNUStep and MacOSX. It is not based on the same specifications, fvwm95 doesn't have matching APIs available, fvwm95doesn't provide unique libraries that interchangeable with Aero's.
It doesn't even have the same UI guidelines, unlike GNUStep and Aqua. GNUStep is not even a 'window manager'.
The only similarities I can see is between the fvwm95(and Aero) and GNUStep(and MacOSX/Aqua) comparison, is that they both run under X11?
Not to mention my 'Macintosh experience' often lead to other issues with the hardware and software that Mac fanatics and Apple like to claim doesn't exist on the platform. Which is why I'm far more crtical on Apple products than any other, they claim they are better.
*Imitating Mr. Spock* Logic would dictate that the next computer they would produce would also have this flaw, unless they made reasonable effort to make sure it doesn't.
Often Windows systems come with the most popular software, such as Nero burner, Cyberlink DVD player, Photoshop pro, Microsoft Office etc. They might not be very well integrated with each other, but they aren't just some knock off applications either.
On the other hand, we have Linux systems, that generally come with everything (bloated installation unfortunately, but at least that can be changed easily) which includes proprietary drivers/software too (Often the reason why people 'diss' Linux distros for not having on the install cd funny enough).
Then there are those smaller companies, which provide cheaper computers, but are also the minimalists. Probably at most you get is Windows, OpenOffice, Firefox (and other free software) with these.
I think most newly sold windows computers have somewhat decent security out of the box, they come with anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewalls, while Mac, just comes with a Firewall. Currently it's a bit behind Apple, because users still run as administrators, but that's going to change in Windows vista.
Most new computers do come with the majority of those programs (usually Opera instead of Firefox in my experience), and windows update is automated (like the update manager on MacOSX).
As for the high memory-tax, avast doesn't seem to be taking much here.
Don't worry, thatll be gone in VistaSorry, no idea what you mean by lack of 'full' multiuser support, example please?You do know that POSIX's permissions system is more primitive Windows's. It's why there has been so much work on compatibility hacks with ACLs, trying to get them working nicely on *nix filesysems. My favorite issue.
How about that PCs come from more than just one vendor. I also don't see many low-end scale PCs often. Another interesting thing, is that HERE, where I am located -- the people who know what windows is, have probably heard of Linux, but most have never even heard of a company called Apple.
There's a reason why I still buy Amigas...My Mac experiences were not so enlightening.
I would rather pay more for hardware that doesn't make high pitch noises (I have sensitive hearing) that I can hear and doesn't have a horrible support that won't fix the problems.
Apple care has sent me back non-working hardware telling me it's fixed a few times -- Other times they told me they fixed the problems, and the problems were still there when I got the hardware back.
Nevermind having to deal with Apple's idea of a OS.
It has one of the most horrible file managers I've ever used -- Finder -- I can't even copy-replace files with it, it crashes on various windows fileshares, creates pointless meta data files that really aren't needed on network shares. There isn't even a easy way to view hidden files. Have to start up a terminal and type in secret commands, then killing-restarting finder. Compared to just doing 'view -> show hidden files' under Konqueror, it's insane.
I find a insane amount of settings hidden in configuration files, rather than GUI (compared to KDE which has most of the options availible in some sort of GUI), which depending on what I set, may require that I restart the entire OS.
Theres also a great advert by Apple, about restarts with Mac. I find it annoying that I have to reboot for various software updates, codec installations, compared to your kubuntu installation, this is just annoying.
This is the kind of 'out-of-the-box' expirences I have had with Apple. Which, Apple likes to promote they're so good at -- doesn't seem that much different at all.
I have to say, I'm really enjoying Kubuntu right now.
I still do not see the advantage in having a 64bit laptop, most of us don't even need 2GB, nevermind beyond 4GB.
Not even the PPC laptop macs had 64bit.