Extension lovers have already noted that what's being suggested is a dumbed up verison of "Tree Style Tab".
The things is, I don't need even that at all.
Part of it is that I don't have a 16:10 display so a vertical tab bar would only end up eating more screen space.
Another part of the problem is that we ALREADY have a vertical tab bar of sorts, one neat tab menu at the right of the tab bar that only eats screen space while you are using it and then it disappears.
Another reason I don't use "Tree Style Tab" is that, when I wan't to separate my tabs by context, I use a different window.
I have always used multiple windows + multiple tabs, I look at extensions that offer single window mode with horror. If any, I use extensions to split my tabs into multiple windows.
And you know what? It works better than "Tree Style Tab" for an unexpected reason. All these tab ideas are based around the idea of having an "eagle view" of you tabs where you can see everything at once. No wonder you need grouping.
I prefer an "out of my sight out of my mind" approach to tabs (and GUI in general), I have multiple desktops for one reason. I may have 20 tabs open but only 5 of them in my current window.
Whenever I have more than 10 tabs open however, it often happens that I go though them quickly, they might be dead end google searches of the like, it doesn't take much to close all those tabs again.
In short this isn't broken, not in 4:3 displays, don't fix it.
I am particularly offended that insurance companies, con men, spammers and stalkers can take a look at my house that cheaply, work for it dammit!. Google, and facebook (which I don't even use but doesn't prevent my "friends" to upload photos of me) are lowering the barrier to entry to scams and such behavior.
Also I am worried about both those "accidental" moments Google breaches into private property and the whole slippery slope because you know they won't be happy until they know everything about everybody, so, the mere fact that there is a culture of privacy will delay that day
If the price of teaching people to protect their privacy is preventing Google from taking a picture of every house in the planet I think it's worth it.
I think that is only really an issue when you are worried fanfics can be more popular than your original work. Otherwise just let it be. Sorry about the failed carrier, you can always learn and try again.
Which immediately raises the question, if nobody would buy it how is SE losing sales because of this game? They should ignore it since it at least keeps the hype up and harassing the fans only antagonizes your customers.
Well on the other hand if new users are trained to use ribbons coping that interface might be beneficial.
Now some aspects in OO.o are just horrible, the color picker looks *and works* like something straight from 1994.
I think they should ask for help or at least inspiration from AbiWord.
Abiword has a wonderful UI, minimalistic yet does 99% of what you want. It's colorful and even cute yet still looks professional. The icons represent exactly what they mean, the menu structure is very intuitive etc.
The problem of Abiworld is that it can't do *every fukken thing imaginable*, you can --for instance-- underline and/or overline and/or strike anytext, but always using the same color of the font. AFAIK in OO.o 3 you will be able to use 3 different colors for that. I'd personally stab anyone who sends me a document with multiple colors per font.
In principle you could apply Abiword's elegant GUI design to all the features in OO.o, it just will be a lot of work. But it would still be intuitive and standard.
This FLUX is both nonstandard and a cheap rip off.
I didn't peel the logo from the case, I just didn't covered it, it was engraved anyway, and why should I be forced to hide the fact that it WAS a JVC product?
It is a piece of modded JVC equipment and that's how I'm selling it. That's why I said Ubuntu should show a notification stating they modded the package.}}
Mozilla's concerns can be eased by changing the window title string from "Mozilla Firefox" to "Iceweasel" because it makes obvious it is not "THE" Firefox, why can't "Firefox [Modified by Ubuntu]" work too?
Trademarks are all about informing the consumer aren't them?
> First, you're not changing the functionality of the JVC unit. You're merely changing the case. It still works the exact same way JVC designed, and using only their electronics.
Maybe maybe not, maybe I removed some electronics to to fit it in. And even so I'm sure any modification however superfluous could get me in trouble if I tried to pass it for an original JVC product.
> And second, you're not starting up a production line and redistributing your redesigned JVC head unit.
Actually that makes no sense. There's nothing stopping me from buying JVC equipment and then selling it (retailing) and there is nothing stopping me from modding JVC equipment as a service even if I use a production line to mod them and by that logic there should be nothing stopping me from doing both things at once. It is only a problem if I pretend these are original JVC equipment
> Is it fair for the Firefox people to have to take the heat, the blame, and the damage to their brand image if Debian or Ubuntu fuck it up?
But why are they going to blame Mozilla if Ubuntu shows a disclaimer explaining that they modded it? This is the point, that as long as the consumer is properly informed no trademark violations have occurred because trademarks are all about informing the consumers!
Suppose I build a custom car, I bought a sound system say, from JVC, for it, it doesn't quite fit so I take it apart to change its proportions. Does JVC have a ground to sue me for trademark violation? No because its obvious that:
a) This is a mod not the original product. and b) This is done for integration and compatibility.
This is EXACTLY what Debian and Ubuntu do to Firefox, why does it has to be treated differently?
Maybe its because it is not so obvious. If Ubuntu makes it so Firefox launches a notification on first launch:
"This version of Firefox was modified by the Ubuntu Team to better serve you"
On what legal grounds can they sue Canonical? And if so, does it mean that JVC can also sue me?
Bullshit, GPL code is 100% free to use, 100% free to build upon for internal use and 99% free to build upon and distribute. It's only restriction is on restricting other's freedom.
Does BSD licensing provides more freedoms?
Actually not, not freedoms in plural, in practice it only gives you one (1) more freedom, there is only one single reason why someone looking for an open source license would choose BSD over GPL, to keep the freedom to restrict your users freedom at some point, directly or by a third party.
You can choose whatever suits you but comparing the GPL with the PATRIOT Act is nothing more than FUD.
But software is really just information, instructions for how to do something.
Suing a developer because his software crashes in your computer is like suing your English teacher because you find a typo in your own writing, or suing you dance teacher because you stumbled.
Software is not a product, is just that copyright, closed source, and the fact that most people are not programmers enables this way of thinking of software as a package you buy in the stores.
But I said CP not PC, CP is a PC way to refer to something... often comsumed with PCs. Also this stuff about IP vs TCP/IP is mostly pushed by the RIAA, the, MPAA and the WIPO just muddling the issue for the FCC and the FBI and eventually to everyone in the US and even the EU, basically the whole of the UN.
But of course different people use different TLCs for instance IANAL just a SE.
Sorry j/k.
Wow what a polite slashdotter, but more than commenting I was replying Smidge's implied question: When will they learn the battle is impossible and adopt lock free business models?
Answer: Never, because they can see the future and know that commoditization of information is not the future, they won't allow it, the future belongs to the gatekeepers and desktop computing is one the gates.
However the masters of the world are woring hard at bringing Big Brother to reality. New business models go against that goal. One day trusted computing will be ubiquitous and wiretaping will be pervasive, in the name of stopping CP and protecting IP of course.
Point taken. Even if it comes from the repositories there is no reason for a music player to edit files in my gnome applications menu or read from my firefox profile.
Honestly desktop security is all done wrong even in linux.
I'm an ubuntu user, I know the software I run is secure because I install from the repository.
Then I downloaded a python game, knowing it could do ANYTHING to get access to root or simply mess up my home dir, I created another user without privileges just to run this game.
Maybe I should have used chroot, maybe I could have used apparmor. I took the fastest route.
I think OSes should jail third party programs by default, not just "suspicious" ones. The large majority of software doesn't need to modify anything beyond their configuration files. Document handlers could be required to use the OS file save/open dialog to read or write to the file system.
Why isn't it done this way? Historical reasons I suppose. Software from the OS vendor is fine as it is (if you didn't thrust the vendor you couldn't use the OS at all) I'm talking about randomly downloaded programs.
Slashdot Mirror
And exactly how does slashdot makes money on ads revenue?
(disclaimer: beware of the woosh)
Extension lovers have already noted that what's being suggested is a dumbed up verison of "Tree Style Tab".
The things is, I don't need even that at all.
Part of it is that I don't have a 16:10 display so a vertical tab bar would only end up eating more screen space.
Another part of the problem is that we ALREADY have a vertical tab bar of sorts, one neat tab menu at the right of the tab bar that only eats screen space while you are using it and then it disappears.
Another reason I don't use "Tree Style Tab" is that, when I wan't to separate my tabs by context, I use a different window.
I have always used multiple windows + multiple tabs, I look at extensions that offer single window mode with horror. If any, I use extensions to split my tabs into multiple windows.
And you know what? It works better than "Tree Style Tab" for an unexpected reason. All these tab ideas are based around the idea of having an "eagle view" of you tabs where you can see everything at once. No wonder you need grouping.
I prefer an "out of my sight out of my mind" approach to tabs (and GUI in general), I have multiple desktops for one reason. I may have 20 tabs open but only 5 of them in my current window.
Whenever I have more than 10 tabs open however, it often happens that I go though them quickly, they might be dead end google searches of the like, it doesn't take much to close all those tabs again.
In short this isn't broken, not in 4:3 displays, don't fix it.
I am particularly offended that insurance companies, con men, spammers and stalkers can take a look at my house that cheaply, work for it dammit!. Google, and facebook (which I don't even use but doesn't prevent my "friends" to upload photos of me) are lowering the barrier to entry to scams and such behavior.
Also I am worried about both those "accidental" moments Google breaches into private property and the whole slippery slope because you know they won't be happy until they know everything about everybody, so, the mere fact that there is a culture of privacy will delay that day
If the price of teaching people to protect their privacy is preventing Google from taking a picture of every house in the planet I think it's worth it.
Best regards to the family.
I think that is only really an issue when you are worried fanfics can be more popular than your original work. Otherwise just let it be. Sorry about the failed carrier, you can always learn and try again.
Which immediately raises the question, if nobody would buy it how is SE losing sales because of this game? They should ignore it since it at least keeps the hype up and harassing the fans only antagonizes your customers.
Exactly! Oracle promised they wouldn't boycott MySQL! They lied!
This is Slashdot's standarized response bot:
WOOSH!
Well on the other hand if new users are trained to use ribbons coping that interface might be beneficial.
Now some aspects in OO.o are just horrible, the color picker looks *and works* like something straight from 1994.
I think they should ask for help or at least inspiration from AbiWord.
Abiword has a wonderful UI, minimalistic yet does 99% of what you want. It's colorful and even cute yet still looks professional. The icons represent exactly what they mean, the menu structure is very intuitive etc.
The problem of Abiworld is that it can't do *every fukken thing imaginable*, you can --for instance-- underline and/or overline and/or strike anytext, but always using the same color of the font. AFAIK in OO.o 3 you will be able to use 3 different colors for that. I'd personally stab anyone who sends me a document with multiple colors per font.
In principle you could apply Abiword's elegant GUI design to all the features in OO.o, it just will be a lot of work. But it would still be intuitive and standard.
This FLUX is both nonstandard and a cheap rip off.
Yeah I guessed so, because, well, I assumed you couldn't proofread your comment very well.
(ouch ouch! karma burns!)
I didn't peel the logo from the case, I just didn't covered it, it was engraved anyway, and why should I be forced to hide the fact that it WAS a JVC product?
It is a piece of modded JVC equipment and that's how I'm selling it. That's why I said Ubuntu should show a notification stating they modded the package.}}
Mozilla's concerns can be eased by changing the window title string from "Mozilla Firefox" to "Iceweasel" because it makes obvious it is not "THE" Firefox, why can't "Firefox [Modified by Ubuntu]" work too?
Trademarks are all about informing the consumer aren't them?
No apples or oranges.
> First, you're not changing the functionality of the JVC unit. You're merely changing the case. It still works the exact same way JVC designed, and using only their electronics.
Maybe maybe not, maybe I removed some electronics to to fit it in. And even so I'm sure any modification however superfluous could get me in trouble if I tried to pass it for an original JVC product.
> And second, you're not starting up a production line and redistributing your redesigned JVC head unit.
Actually that makes no sense. There's nothing stopping me from buying JVC equipment and then selling it (retailing) and there is nothing stopping me from modding JVC equipment as a service even if I use a production line to mod them and by that logic there should be nothing stopping me from doing both things at once. It is only a problem if I pretend these are original JVC equipment
> Is it fair for the Firefox people to have to take the heat, the blame, and the damage to their brand image if Debian or Ubuntu fuck it up?
But why are they going to blame Mozilla if Ubuntu shows a disclaimer explaining that they modded it? This is the point, that as long as the consumer is properly informed no trademark violations have occurred because trademarks are all about informing the consumers!
Suppose I build a custom car, I bought a sound system say, from JVC, for it, it doesn't quite fit so I take it apart to change its proportions. Does JVC have a ground to sue me for trademark violation? No because its obvious that:
a) This is a mod not the original product.
and
b) This is done for integration and compatibility.
This is EXACTLY what Debian and Ubuntu do to Firefox, why does it has to be treated differently?
Maybe its because it is not so obvious. If Ubuntu makes it so Firefox launches a notification on first launch:
"This version of Firefox was modified by the Ubuntu Team to better serve you"
On what legal grounds can they sue Canonical? And if so, does it mean that JVC can also sue me?
Bullshit, GPL code is 100% free to use, 100% free to build upon for internal use and 99% free to build upon and distribute. It's only restriction is on restricting other's freedom.
Does BSD licensing provides more freedoms?
Actually not, not freedoms in plural, in practice it only gives you one (1) more freedom, there is only one single reason why someone looking for an open source license would choose BSD over GPL, to keep the freedom to restrict your users freedom at some point, directly or by a third party.
You can choose whatever suits you but comparing the GPL with the PATRIOT Act is nothing more than FUD.
But software is really just information, instructions for how to do something.
Suing a developer because his software crashes in your computer is like suing your English teacher because you find a typo in your own writing, or suing you dance teacher because you stumbled.
Software is not a product, is just that copyright, closed source, and the fact that most people are not programmers enables this way of thinking of software as a package you buy in the stores.
But I said CP not PC, CP is a PC way to refer to something... often comsumed with PCs. Also this stuff about IP vs TCP/IP is mostly pushed by the RIAA, the, MPAA and the WIPO just muddling the issue for the FCC and the FBI and eventually to everyone in the US and even the EU, basically the whole of the UN.
But of course different people use different TLCs for instance IANAL just a SE.
Sorry j/k.
Wow what a polite slashdotter, but more than commenting I was replying Smidge's implied question: When will they learn the battle is impossible and adopt lock free business models?
Answer: Never, because they can see the future and know that commoditization of information is not the future, they won't allow it, the future belongs to the gatekeepers and desktop computing is one the gates.
However the masters of the world are woring hard at bringing Big Brother to reality. New business models go against that goal. One day trusted computing will be ubiquitous and wiretaping will be pervasive, in the name of stopping CP and protecting IP of course.
Are you sure you didn't click the checkbox where you tell them you aren't interested in modding?
Wait, the most I've got is Excellent Karma, is there anything like Perfect Karma? Do you go to Nirvana and never post again after that happens?
Perfect Karma would be such a cool movie title... It'll need to have Jean-Claude Van Damme and Jackie Chan and a digital recreation of Pat Morita.
I develop PHP applications for a living and all I can say is, why bother?
If was to fix PHP the result would be practically like python, but that would be incompatible! But PHP6 will be incompatible anyway, what's the point?
For new projects I recommend any other tool, I'd say Django or Rails but even ASP could do better.
For legacy applications you can't switch to PHP6 or the legacy code will fail.
Point taken. Even if it comes from the repositories there is no reason for a music player to edit files in my gnome applications menu or read from my firefox profile.
Honestly desktop security is all done wrong even in linux.
I'm an ubuntu user, I know the software I run is secure because I install from the repository.
Then I downloaded a python game, knowing it could do ANYTHING to get access to root or simply mess up my home dir, I created another user without privileges just to run this game.
Maybe I should have used chroot, maybe I could have used apparmor. I took the fastest route.
I think OSes should jail third party programs by default, not just "suspicious" ones. The large majority of software doesn't need to modify anything beyond their configuration files. Document handlers could be required to use the OS file save/open dialog to read or write to the file system.
Why isn't it done this way? Historical reasons I suppose. Software from the OS vendor is fine as it is (if you didn't thrust the vendor you couldn't use the OS at all) I'm talking about randomly downloaded programs.
Those laws aren't broad enough!
Didn't you heard? The GPL is viral! Your programs might get infected when GPL'ed programs sneeze!