Either that, or they're web-developers. While I've been too lazy to do anything with my site in years, I have spent a lot of time and effort at site design, in addition to theming content management systems like Drupal, and it has only made me hate IE that much more (particularly 6.x, which far too many people still use). Nothing is more frustrating to me than having XHTML and CSS that validates without errors and works beautifully in any browser other than IE, but which breaks miserably in IE < 7.x.
While I can see the point of view of people who wouldn't want Safari forced upon them, my first thought was, "If that contributes to people not using Internet Explorer, I'm all for it."
With things like PNG transparency and various CSS effects, you can create beautifully stylish pages with (X|)HTML that focuses on content and the presentation of data, and it's ridiculously frustrating to have to come up with a work-around or alternate CSS to shoehorn it into working for IE. If the site owner doesn't care to support IE6, in favor of having transparent PNG images called via CSS (or other features not supported by obsolete IE versions), I've taken to including the following code in my PHP:
<?php /* Check for Internet Explorer */ if (preg_match("/MSIE [56]/i", $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'])) { if (preg_match("/MSIE 5/i", $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'])) { $secunia_url = "http://secunia.com/product/10/"; } else { $secunia_url = "http://secunia.com/product/11/"; } echo <<< END <h1 id="ie_warning">Warning:</h1> <p id="ie_detected">You appear to be using an <strong><a href="$ie_criticism_url">obsolete, insecure, and broken web browser</a></strong>. Not only can this lead to the theft of any personal information that you might enter into it, including passwords, account numbers, and other financial information, it also leaves your computer wide open for attack, through a <strong><a href="$secunia_url">wide range of vulnerabilities</a></strong>. This site is not intended to support your browser, and will not correctly render in it. Please download and use one of the following free web browsers, which are <em>considerably</em> more secure, and adhere to web standards, guaranteeing you a vastly superior (and safer) web-browsing experience: <a href="http://mozilla.com/">Firefox</a>, <a href="http://opera.com/">Opera</a>, or <a href="http://apple.com/safari/">Safari</a>.</p> END; } ?>
Feel free to use this and set $ie_criticism_url to whatever works for you; the page on Wikipedia that I was using (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer#Criticisms) is no more, but there's always http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers#Vulnerabilities and other possibilities. Sure, perhaps I'm being heavy-handed with it, but after a while, you almost have to hit people over the head with the clue-stick.;-)
You could always check out Path Finder, and use that instead of Finder. It offers this feature. I've been using it in place of Apple's Finder since 10.1 or 10.2. It offers a lot of things Finder doesn't. The only minus, if you're attached to Cover Flow, it does not have this feature yet (which is the only feature I'm aware of that Finder has and Path Finder does not). QuickLook works.
Although, you can use QuickLook from Terminal, also. Just add this to your ~/.bash_profile for added laziness:
function ql { (qlmanage -p "$@" >/dev/null 2>&1 & local ql_pid=$! read -sn 1 kill ${ql_pid}) >/dev/null 2>&1 }
Then use 'ql whatever' in Terminal. You can also find a ton of third-party QuickLook plugins here and here.
Sadly, from what I've seen as a U.S. citizen, outside of various tech-related sites, it doesn't get all that much coverage. I tend to make a point of commenting on non-tech forums that I'm on if they have an off-topic board, because (in my opinion), anyone in the U.S. should be aware of what the RIAA is up to, especially after all the crap about how making MP3s for personal use is infringing (i.e. the RIAA wants to throw out fair use).
I'm equally impressed by what NewYorkCountryLawyer is doing; I strongly feel that he's a credit to his (much maligned) profession. It's also great to see these types of verdicts; if more judges were willing to throw the book at the RIAA for poorly researched and barely documented cases, perhaps we'd see far less spurious suits.
The quote "without actual distribution of copies.... there is no violation" was the icing on the cake, for me. We need more judges like this.
Back to the main topic, though, at least for a moment: Personally, I'm glad to hear that the class action status was approved; Microsoft needs to be smacked into not deliberately misleading customers into thinking a product will do ____ when it clearly won't. (See also PlaysForSure on Zune.) I only know one person who actually seems to like Vista, and it's mostly because he doesn't realize that his >$900 laptop doesn't need to run like Gnome on a sub-600MHz Pentium.
While I don't want to slag your post, I do want to point out that Apple is unlikely to delete your iPod auction (with mp3s). However, the RIAA is quite likely to delete it and sue you for infringing their copyrights.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if this has happened yet?
Are there even any OEMs out there that pre-install RealPlayer, these days? I'm not aware of any.
Re:Circuit City shoppers are the Slashdot standard
on
Hostile ta Vista, Baby
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sorry to nitpick, but Facebook's website isn't the problem. It's their IPv6DNS. They are not the same, and I'd hope that most Slashdotters know the difference.
And it certainly is a failing of Vista's, if it does not gracefully fall back to IPv4 when IPv6 fails. You'd think after this long of "not getting the internet", they'd have at least figured out networking.;)
Eh. I clicked "Submit" accidentally, instead of "Preview". Sorry. To continue...
Whoa whoa whoa, I'm supposed to buy a professional-oriented program when all I want to is export a few stills?
If you don't like the way iMovie exports stills, there are free and commercial solutions that give you alternatives. I cited one of the advantages of a commercial alternative. To which your only response is to whine like a little bitch.
Oh, you mean Tiger, the OS rev that everyone was suppposed to be using and enjoying the BRILLIANT INTERFACE DESIGN of not but a few months ago?
I said what I mean, but you do not demonstrate a level of reading comprehension great enough to debate it.
Where?
See most of this thread. Screenshots and/or video, or stop whining. Your laughable camera-work that makes it nearly impossible to follow what you're doing does not count for much.
She does know how to close windows. But look at the top bar of that window: nothing there will close it!
See above, or tell me where to find this "rules" page that does not seem to be in either version of Mail that I compared (both on 10.4 and 10.5). I've documented the "Rules" preference in 10.5's Mail.app in my video, and it's the same on 10.4.
I know grandmothers who use Mac OS X's Mail.app to e-mail pictures, and they seem to have more of a clue what they are doing than you are.
If you want to keep arguing, come back with demonstrable evidence of your claims.
And you're still refusing to produce screenshots or a video clearly showing what you claim to be right, whereas I have the video documenting that you're wrong. Like I have said in several previous posts, let's see some evidence, emo-troll-boy.
The goal *this whole time* is to get the stills in a folder I want, with the names I want.
Because it's SO hard to move or rename a still after you export it from iMovie?
If you don't like the way that iMovie behaves, use a different app. VLC has a very simple method of taking stills. Video > Snapshot. But no doubt, if you used it, you'd cry over the fact that it doesn't prompt you to rename it (because it expects you to be smart enough to rename files in Finder).
No, I didn't forget to tell you how to do this; it's not a feature built into Mac OS X (or any other operating system of which I am aware). I use Snapz Pro X. It is capable of recording both a Mac audio track and a microphone track.
Adding additional steps to a process is just a tactic to refuse to admit that I proved you wrong. It only takes one more click to rename a file after the steps that I demonstrated. (Click and hold for a second on the file that is selected after "Reveal in Finder", then let go. You'll have Finder set for you to type a new name for that file.) So it takes a whopping three clicks and some typing to grab a still from a clip in iMovie and rename it. That's just so difficult it's criminal. Apple is stealing your time! If you merely want to extract stills (instead of actually editing movies) and are unhappy about how long it takes, you should be using Quicktime or another application, not iMovie. With the pro version of Quicktime, you can export the whole clip to a series of stills with only a few mouse-clicks and keystrokes, should you wish to do so.
You seem to be failing to state what should be in Leopard that isn't there.
You also seem to want to shift the debate from just how you're wrong to semantics. You failed to give an example of what would prevent your hypothetical grandmother from being able to "undarken" the subject line. Stick with the program, emo-boy!
In my video, if she does not know how to use the close button to close a window in Mac OS X, the Rules pane in Mail.app's preferences is the least of her worries. If that's the case, she doesn't know how to close ANY windows.
And you continue to fail to produce screenshots illustrating what you say. My video showed the Rules screen of Mail in Leopard, which looks nothing like what yours is purported to look like. Watch it again if you don't believe me.
How did you prove that this flaw existed to begin with? My video shows quite clearly that (in Leopard) the Rules window fits easily on the screen, without going under the Dock. Your video shows something blurry that appears to go under the Dock. Since recording that video I've checked another Mac running 10.4 [with Mail.app version 2.1.2 (753)] which has the exact same Rules pane in its Preferences as the one pictured in my video.
I am not resting my arguments on that single remark, I was merely (successfully) countering an untrue claim that you made with a factually correct rebuttal.
Okay, first, it is a LIE that saving stills takes "OMG" two clicks.
My video proves this to be true, I did it with 2 clicks. Count them:
Secondary-click (and hold), drag the mouse down to "Add Still Frame to Project". Release mouse button.
Move the mouse pointer to the frame, secondary-click (and hold), drag the mouse down to "Reveal in Finder". Release the mouse button.
In case you failed to count that, that was 2 clicks. You could also do it in 4, if you didn't hold down the mouse button. Try it. Am I lying? No.
Even if your hypothetical grandmother had a window trapped behind the Dock (which you have yet to prove), and I have already shown not to exist in the current version of the operating system, she is not locked into Mail.app, there is nothing to prevent her from opening a web browser, accessing the Help menu, or going into System Preferences. So she is hardly "locked in". Please demonstrate the inability to "undarken" subject lines; I don't use Mail.app, and you have yet to show this issue. I've already illustrated that it is quite easy to get stills and only takes a few seconds.
However you try to twist my statements does not make them untrue when I have demonstrated them with visual evidence, unless you are claiming that I altered that video. Seriously, if you're going to keep arguing this, bring facts to the discussion.
If it does, where are the screenshots to prove it? Your Mac has a built-in tool to take screenshots and I have told you how to do it. There are free sites like Photobucket or Flickr to host them for you.
You found fault with 3 items inside of Mac OS X. If you could actually prove two of them with screenshots, it would demonstrate that Mac OS X's interface is not perfect, which I never claimed that it was (and as far as I'm aware, neither has Apple). I will concede that you cannot do #2 with only one click (OMG, it takes two), but that does not translate as "Mac OS X's interface sucks". If three claimed flaws meant that an interface sucked, then there is no interface that doesn't suck. You aren't even using the interface "NOW", you're using the interface that has since been replaced by Leopard.
Again, where is the screenshot showing this window? See #1.
Me: I have demonstrated that you are wrong.
You: But I *say* it does this, therefore it does, because I can whine like an emo-kid on YouTube while shooting a badly angled video that is too unclear to show anything.
But I'm sure that the only way you can further your trolling argument is to duck the points I made, refuse to answer questions (bug reports, screenshots), and whine that it's all Apple's fault that you can't do [insert feature here].
People like me are found by trolls like you who post something that is absolutely false to my experience. I read the "boohoo, iPhoto won't show a picture in Finder" and immediately thought "but yes, it will." I then proceeded to prove you wrong, and you're still whining about it. Next time, hone your arguments to include some facts and screen captures which provide corroboration.
I just tested exactly what you describe in your post above, and I still have "Show File" regardless of where I import to iPhoto from. Do I need to do another video to prove you wrong? It only takes me a few moments to record something that takes 10 seconds.
This is an amazingly trivial thing to quibble about. I've proved that you can export stills from iMovie (you take a still, then reveal it in Finder). If you're not happy about the way Apple did it, submit a bug on it. I have done this previously (an issue with Terminal in the developer builds of Leopard), and it was fixed ASAP.
From your movie, I cannot make out the window that you are claiming descends below the Dock. Personally, I've yet to manage to make a window that cannot fit completely on the screen. Mac OS X is aware of where the Dock is, and will resize windows to accommodate it. Take a screenshot of it, using the Cmd+Shift+3 built into Tiger.
I'm also interested in knowing how my not upgrading to Leopard to be like all my sheep Mac buddies has anything to do with my complaint.
I was pointing out that if you are as dissatisfied with Mac OS X Tiger as your whining on here and in your video makes you out to be, there are alternatives. You have an Intel Mac. You could install any OS you want to on it. That you are still using 10.4 merely indicates to me that you are going out of your way to find things to troll and whine about. Apple still supports 10.4, as well, for that matter, and you could submit a bug report on your Mail window problem (if it really is a problem; in your video I could not make out the bottom of the window being below the Dock). But I'm betting that you've submitted no bugs, as you're just here to troll and whine.
For that matter, it's not like Apple is forcing you not to use another mail client, there are a quite a few of free choices (Thunderbird, Eudora, Correo, and Mulberry spring to mind).
I guess. It's hard to imagine WHAT program they could be using to create such lousy images. While personally, I use Photoshop on a daily basis, GIMP is a very functional editor, and can do much of what Photoshop can. (GIMP can even a few things that Photoshop cannot, particularly with regards to opening certain image types, although at the moment, I'm at a loss to remember which image format it was that I had to use GIMP for, because Photoshop wouldn't open it. I think it may have been XPM.)
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd figure that they were using Microsoft Paint, on Windows 2000 or before. Back when it could barely write JPEG if you had the right additional software.
The particular image that I was talking about can be found here. It's full of visual artifacts and bad editing. Only a fool would think it was an actual product. @.~
You mean that they consistently change where things are for no good reason, between versions of Windows? Because I have to say, that's my favorite feature when Windows-users look to me for support and I don't have a VMware image in front of me. It'd be one thing if I had to support it full-time, but even though I've used every version of Windows since 3.11, it's no longer my primary operating system, and hasn't been for years. (In fact, I seldom use it outside of VMware). Trust me, it's a pain remembering that feature x is located one place, in Windows 2000 Professional, and usually one or two menus deeper with XP. Ranting about Vista, on the other hand, would take forever.
And GUI consistency? Please. Have you tried running Microsoft Money on Windows 2000? How about Windows Media Player on any version of Windows? Microsoft is great at making applications that look nothing like the GUI when it suits them to do so. Perhaps they've made some improvements, here and there, but they still has a lot to learn when it comes to GUI consistency.
Look at this before you try to tell us of how "consistent" the Windows GUI is:
Please explain how you were using an OS 2 years before it was available for retail purchase. Did the Doctor deliver your Windows Vista T.A.R.D.I.S. edition personally?
If you meant that you were using development copies of Longhorn, I'm very skeptical that your Source gaming on it was as problem-free as you seem to claim that it was. Of course, I'm sure if you weren't trolling, you wouldn't be posting anonymously. @.~
Personally, even though I don't feel particularly at risk from an RIAA suit, I find it somewhat comforting to know what they're up to, and how the various suits that they've filed are faring. I continue to hope that our legal system decides not to give in to the RIAA's tactic of sue-first-and-ask-questions later, and that seems to be the case of late. I also appreciate what Ray Beckerman is doing, both with his blog and his submissions to Slashdot. Being informed is a good thing.
Ray: Thank you for your efforts in raising awareness of these issues, you're a credit to your profession. Keep at it!
Re:Probably that you're running Ubuntu, like me.
on
GNOME 2.16 Released
·
· Score: 1
Would that be because it comes pre-built with crust, like computing on a thick-crust pizza?
Somehow, I think you mean cruft, which is a standard feature in every copy of Windows XP (see 2, 4, and possibly 3 on that definition).
You might want to browse the internet a bit more...Mana is a man. He was famous for crossdressing while in Malice Mizer and while modelling certain of his fashion product lines.
Slashdot Mirror
Either that, or they're web-developers. While I've been too lazy to do anything with my site in years, I have spent a lot of time and effort at site design, in addition to theming content management systems like Drupal, and it has only made me hate IE that much more (particularly 6.x, which far too many people still use). Nothing is more frustrating to me than having XHTML and CSS that validates without errors and works beautifully in any browser other than IE, but which breaks miserably in IE < 7.x.
While I can see the point of view of people who wouldn't want Safari forced upon them, my first thought was, "If that contributes to people not using Internet Explorer, I'm all for it."
With things like PNG transparency and various CSS effects, you can create beautifully stylish pages with (X|)HTML that focuses on content and the presentation of data, and it's ridiculously frustrating to have to come up with a work-around or alternate CSS to shoehorn it into working for IE. If the site owner doesn't care to support IE6, in favor of having transparent PNG images called via CSS (or other features not supported by obsolete IE versions), I've taken to including the following code in my PHP:
Feel free to use this and set $ie_criticism_url to whatever works for you; the page on Wikipedia that I was using (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer#Criticisms) is no more, but there's always http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers#Vulnerabilities and other possibilities. Sure, perhaps I'm being heavy-handed with it, but after a while, you almost have to hit people over the head with the clue-stick. ;-)
You may want to look into this, then: Classic on Intel.
Set that up, and you won't need your 10.3 install anymore.
You could always check out Path Finder, and use that instead of Finder. It offers this feature. I've been using it in place of Apple's Finder since 10.1 or 10.2. It offers a lot of things Finder doesn't. The only minus, if you're attached to Cover Flow, it does not have this feature yet (which is the only feature I'm aware of that Finder has and Path Finder does not). QuickLook works.
Although, you can use QuickLook from Terminal, also. Just add this to your ~/.bash_profile for added laziness:
Then use 'ql whatever' in Terminal. You can also find a ton of third-party QuickLook plugins here and here.
Sadly, from what I've seen as a U.S. citizen, outside of various tech-related sites, it doesn't get all that much coverage. I tend to make a point of commenting on non-tech forums that I'm on if they have an off-topic board, because (in my opinion), anyone in the U.S. should be aware of what the RIAA is up to, especially after all the crap about how making MP3s for personal use is infringing (i.e. the RIAA wants to throw out fair use).
I'm equally impressed by what NewYorkCountryLawyer is doing; I strongly feel that he's a credit to his (much maligned) profession. It's also great to see these types of verdicts; if more judges were willing to throw the book at the RIAA for poorly researched and barely documented cases, perhaps we'd see far less spurious suits.
The quote "without actual distribution of copies.... there is no violation" was the icing on the cake, for me. We need more judges like this.
Give it time, Google is already paying for work on getting Photoshop to run better in it. You might also check out Xen or VMware. Having helped a number of friends and customers migrate to SuSE (now pre-installed by Lenovo) and Ubuntu (now pre-installed by Dell), I'm impressed at the advances being made in desktop GNU/Linux.
Back to the main topic, though, at least for a moment: Personally, I'm glad to hear that the class action status was approved; Microsoft needs to be smacked into not deliberately misleading customers into thinking a product will do ____ when it clearly won't. (See also PlaysForSure on Zune.) I only know one person who actually seems to like Vista, and it's mostly because he doesn't realize that his >$900 laptop doesn't need to run like Gnome on a sub-600MHz Pentium.
While I don't want to slag your post, I do want to point out that Apple is unlikely to delete your iPod auction (with mp3s). However, the RIAA is quite likely to delete it and sue you for infringing their copyrights.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if this has happened yet?
I think that you're confusing RealPlayer with Windows Media Player.
Are there even any OEMs out there that pre-install RealPlayer, these days? I'm not aware of any.
Sorry to nitpick, but Facebook's website isn't the problem. It's their IPv6 DNS . They are not the same, and I'd hope that most Slashdotters know the difference.
And it certainly is a failing of Vista's, if it does not gracefully fall back to IPv4 when IPv6 fails. You'd think after this long of "not getting the internet", they'd have at least figured out networking. ;)
To be precise, Windows XP was released on 25 October, 2001.
And from what I've seen, there are still quite a number of people using 2000 at home and at work.
Eh. I clicked "Submit" accidentally, instead of "Preview". Sorry. To continue...
If you don't like the way iMovie exports stills, there are free and commercial solutions that give you alternatives. I cited one of the advantages of a commercial alternative. To which your only response is to whine like a little bitch.
I said what I mean, but you do not demonstrate a level of reading comprehension great enough to debate it.
See most of this thread. Screenshots and/or video, or stop whining. Your laughable camera-work that makes it nearly impossible to follow what you're doing does not count for much.
See above, or tell me where to find this "rules" page that does not seem to be in either version of Mail that I compared (both on 10.4 and 10.5). I've documented the "Rules" preference in 10.5's Mail.app in my video, and it's the same on 10.4.
I know grandmothers who use Mac OS X's Mail.app to e-mail pictures, and they seem to have more of a clue what they are doing than you are.
If you want to keep arguing, come back with demonstrable evidence of your claims.
And you're still refusing to produce screenshots or a video clearly showing what you claim to be right, whereas I have the video documenting that you're wrong. Like I have said in several previous posts, let's see some evidence, emo-troll-boy.
Because it's SO hard to move or rename a still after you export it from iMovie?
If you don't like the way that iMovie behaves, use a different app. VLC has a very simple method of taking stills. Video > Snapshot. But no doubt, if you used it, you'd cry over the fact that it doesn't prompt you to rename it (because it expects you to be smart enough to rename files in Finder).
No, I didn't forget to tell you how to do this; it's not a feature built into Mac OS X (or any other operating system of which I am aware). I use Snapz Pro X. It is capable of recording both a Mac audio track and a microphone track.
Adding additional steps to a process is just a tactic to refuse to admit that I proved you wrong. It only takes one more click to rename a file after the steps that I demonstrated. (Click and hold for a second on the file that is selected after "Reveal in Finder", then let go. You'll have Finder set for you to type a new name for that file.) So it takes a whopping three clicks and some typing to grab a still from a clip in iMovie and rename it. That's just so difficult it's criminal. Apple is stealing your time! If you merely want to extract stills (instead of actually editing movies) and are unhappy about how long it takes, you should be using Quicktime or another application, not iMovie. With the pro version of Quicktime, you can export the whole clip to a series of stills with only a few mouse-clicks and keystrokes, should you wish to do so.
You seem to be failing to state what should be in Leopard that isn't there.
You also seem to want to shift the debate from just how you're wrong to semantics. You failed to give an example of what would prevent your hypothetical grandmother from being able to "undarken" the subject line. Stick with the program, emo-boy!
In my video, if she does not know how to use the close button to close a window in Mac OS X, the Rules pane in Mail.app's preferences is the least of her worries. If that's the case, she doesn't know how to close ANY windows.
And you continue to fail to produce screenshots illustrating what you say. My video showed the Rules screen of Mail in Leopard, which looks nothing like what yours is purported to look like. Watch it again if you don't believe me.
My video proves this to be true, I did it with 2 clicks. Count them:
In case you failed to count that, that was 2 clicks. You could also do it in 4, if you didn't hold down the mouse button. Try it. Am I lying? No.
Even if your hypothetical grandmother had a window trapped behind the Dock (which you have yet to prove), and I have already shown not to exist in the current version of the operating system, she is not locked into Mail.app, there is nothing to prevent her from opening a web browser, accessing the Help menu, or going into System Preferences. So she is hardly "locked in". Please demonstrate the inability to "undarken" subject lines; I don't use Mail.app, and you have yet to show this issue. I've already illustrated that it is quite easy to get stills and only takes a few seconds.
However you try to twist my statements does not make them untrue when I have demonstrated them with visual evidence, unless you are claiming that I altered that video. Seriously, if you're going to keep arguing this, bring facts to the discussion.
Me: I have demonstrated that you are wrong.
You: But I *say* it does this, therefore it does, because I can whine like an emo-kid on YouTube while shooting a badly angled video that is too unclear to show anything.
But I'm sure that the only way you can further your trolling argument is to duck the points I made, refuse to answer questions (bug reports, screenshots), and whine that it's all Apple's fault that you can't do [insert feature here].
People like me are found by trolls like you who post something that is absolutely false to my experience. I read the "boohoo, iPhoto won't show a picture in Finder" and immediately thought "but yes, it will." I then proceeded to prove you wrong, and you're still whining about it. Next time, hone your arguments to include some facts and screen captures which provide corroboration.
I was pointing out that if you are as dissatisfied with Mac OS X Tiger as your whining on here and in your video makes you out to be, there are alternatives. You have an Intel Mac. You could install any OS you want to on it. That you are still using 10.4 merely indicates to me that you are going out of your way to find things to troll and whine about. Apple still supports 10.4, as well, for that matter, and you could submit a bug report on your Mail window problem (if it really is a problem; in your video I could not make out the bottom of the window being below the Dock). But I'm betting that you've submitted no bugs, as you're just here to troll and whine.
For that matter, it's not like Apple is forcing you not to use another mail client, there are a quite a few of free choices (Thunderbird, Eudora, Correo, and Mulberry spring to mind).
But that's just it! They don't want to let him race.
Sadly, I don't currently have the mod points to mod you "troll", so instead, I posted a video response to the YouTube video instead. Seriously, is "Reveal In Finder" that hard to find?
I don't think that Mac OS X is perfect, but I'd like to see you name another OS that is more user-friendly.
I guess. It's hard to imagine WHAT program they could be using to create such lousy images. While personally, I use Photoshop on a daily basis, GIMP is a very functional editor, and can do much of what Photoshop can. (GIMP can even a few things that Photoshop cannot, particularly with regards to opening certain image types, although at the moment, I'm at a loss to remember which image format it was that I had to use GIMP for, because Photoshop wouldn't open it. I think it may have been XPM.)
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd figure that they were using Microsoft Paint, on Windows 2000 or before. Back when it could barely write JPEG if you had the right additional software.
The particular image that I was talking about can be found here. It's full of visual artifacts and bad editing. Only a fool would think it was an actual product. @.~
Actually, if you look at the source, this line:
It would appear that they are using WSN Links with FCKeditor.
My favorite thing about that site is still the "Patent Panding" (sic) SD card, which was quite obviously (and badly) Photoshopped.
You mean that they consistently change where things are for no good reason, between versions of Windows? Because I have to say, that's my favorite feature when Windows-users look to me for support and I don't have a VMware image in front of me. It'd be one thing if I had to support it full-time, but even though I've used every version of Windows since 3.11, it's no longer my primary operating system, and hasn't been for years. (In fact, I seldom use it outside of VMware). Trust me, it's a pain remembering that feature x is located one place, in Windows 2000 Professional, and usually one or two menus deeper with XP. Ranting about Vista, on the other hand, would take forever.
And GUI consistency? Please. Have you tried running Microsoft Money on Windows 2000? How about Windows Media Player on any version of Windows? Microsoft is great at making applications that look nothing like the GUI when it suits them to do so. Perhaps they've made some improvements, here and there, but they still has a lot to learn when it comes to GUI consistency.
Look at this before you try to tell us of how "consistent" the Windows GUI is:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html
Please explain how you were using an OS 2 years before it was available for retail purchase. Did the Doctor deliver your Windows Vista T.A.R.D.I.S. edition personally?
If you meant that you were using development copies of Longhorn, I'm very skeptical that your Source gaming on it was as problem-free as you seem to claim that it was. Of course, I'm sure if you weren't trolling, you wouldn't be posting anonymously. @.~
Personally, even though I don't feel particularly at risk from an RIAA suit, I find it somewhat comforting to know what they're up to, and how the various suits that they've filed are faring. I continue to hope that our legal system decides not to give in to the RIAA's tactic of sue-first-and-ask-questions later, and that seems to be the case of late. I also appreciate what Ray Beckerman is doing, both with his blog and his submissions to Slashdot. Being informed is a good thing.
Ray: Thank you for your efforts in raising awareness of these issues, you're a credit to your profession. Keep at it!
Would that be because it comes pre-built with crust, like computing on a thick-crust pizza?
Somehow, I think you mean cruft, which is a standard feature in every copy of Windows XP (see 2, 4, and possibly 3 on that definition).
You might want to browse the internet a bit more...Mana is a man. He was famous for crossdressing while in Malice Mizer and while modelling certain of his fashion product lines.
Obviously Slashdot needs this addition to the source:
Just think what can be added to Wikipedia's Slashdot entry! @.~