I think Havoc is doing the right thing by doing the ones that make sense over time and getting the implementation right instead of adding hack after hack because users can't wait for the WM to mature.
That approach is NOT what the manifesto says is happening. The manifesto says those things will never be added.
On a scale of configurability, it ranks like this:
Gnome 1.x - most configurable.
KDE - medium amount of configurability.
Gnome 2.x - least configurable.
So, those who like configurability lost the most configurable platform when Gnome 2 came out and Gnome 1.x was no longer being worked on, and had to settle for the one that *previously* had been less configurable - KDE. No, KDE is not "exactly" what we want. It's just the only thing left nowadays.
A broadband connection is generally 24/7, and there are always enough IP addresses for every subscriber.
With shifting IP addresses via DHCP you don't need to actually have an address always assigned. When you try doing something, it can renegotiate for an address at that point.
A bandwidth hog is using either P2P, running servers or something else. I don't think that this assumption is any wrong, especially since I specified "etc...";-)
That's equivilent to just "a bandwith hog is running something". Since nobody would ever really say such a pointless thing, I doubt your claim that this is what you meant. Hence my comment.
You are operating under the assumption that the prompt printing wasn't included in the characters he was talking about. If the discussion is about unix philosophy in general, then the terseness or verbosity of the shell is still part of the same issue even though it's a seperate program. To tell you the program is done at least SOME character has to be sent to the terminal. The fact that it might be the shell that's actually doing it doesn't change that statement.
That's still wrong. A bandwith hog is anyone using bandwith. If you download 50GB in a month off of web HTTP downloads, that's still just as much of a hog as someone transferring that much over P2P.
And if your specification of 'etc' was meant to cover everything as you are implying, then that renders your statement utterly pointless because it equates to "bandwith hogs are using something or other."
So you have to use a different keypress to cut and paste sometimes. BFD. That happens in Windows too. (It's not ALWAYS CTRL-X,C,V, at about the same rate of occurrance as 'middle button' fails to be the right way to paste in a Unix X app.)
In British English, "toilet" often refers to the whole room, and the whole, uhhhm - experience - of taking care of sanitary needs, including not only getting rid of waste, but also the washing up afterward, the sink, the soap, and so on. (So it's closer to the orginal French 'toilet'.) In American English, "toilet" refers to JUST the physical chair-like thing that flushes. It never refers to the room as a whole. Therefore putting the word "toilet" on the door *does not* mean the same thing as "washroom" or "restroom". It's not just a euphamism thing. In American English, putting the word "toilet" on the door is like labelling it, "crapping chair", and has that level of connotation.
And the evil thing is that this will hold up in court, because juries and judges don't know the subject material, and attempts to educate them will fall of deaf ears.
Because the company wants to limit bandwith as much as they can without pissing off customers. That means that the types of bandwith the majority like to use is sacrosanct, while the types of bandiwth that only the minority of geeks use is not. That's why you get such unfair policies as Windows shares allowed while NFS shares are not - even though they have the same exact purpose and similar bandwith usage. That's why they allow massive downloads but not uploads. Most customers don't upload much, so they can put that cap in place and only piss off a minority.
And, as a further bonus to the company, they can slander those who complain about this policy by putting forth the lie that they only want these services for some illicit purpose - the slander is very effectice because it's only hitting services used by a miniority of geeks - so the general population of their customers doesn't know that they are being lied to.
Frankly, if you need to use their support site, you *should* be using windows/IE, since you're obviously not capable of handling anything else.
Yes, because of course all possible problems that might make you need to check the support site must be caused by the end user's own ignorance. The ISP itself *never* messes up, right? And you *never* need to look and see if other people have had the same problem as you and it's endemic and not worth trying to fix on your end. Nope, that *never* happens to anybody.
Idiot.
Note, you also often need to look at the support site to find some kinds of information that NO AMOUNT OF EXPERTISE will tell you - like what the IP addresses are that the site uses for certain things, or what their terms of service are.
90% of the bandwidth (P2P, running servers, etc...)
I am sick and tired of this assumption on the part of ISPs that you can make a fair one-to-one mapping between type of protocol and amount of bandwith. Because some people abuse bandwith with P2P, they start banning all P2P. Because some people put up popular servers that eat up bandwith, they assume that anyone running a server must be a bandwith hog. (Screw you, what if I just want to be able to transfer some work files from home to work and visa versa from work, and so I need a server of some sort up at home? That's NOT taking much bandwith, but because it's the same *type* of protocol as some that do get abused, they get painted with the same brush and the terms of service disallow that kind of usage.)
I really hate this because it leads to an internet which really *does* divide the content providers from the content consumers in a way the internet was never meant to do.
They have every right to enact whatever business policy they wish. But when they LIE about what that policy is to customers who are purchasing service, that's called fraud, and they *don't* have the right to do that. If you say "unlimited" when you really meant "there exist some limits", then you are lying. The lasiez-faire free market concept works ONLY if companies are forced to be truthful. If you let them get away with making false claims, then the checks and balances of the system don't work.
Being online 24/7 is NOT a bandwith problem. It's a limited IP address pool problem. If someone's machine is online, but only sending and receiving minimal little 'keep alive' packets and not much more, then it's not taking up any relevant amount of bandwith. If I want to 'ping' my home machine, or leave it running so I can ftp a few megs from work to home before driving home, that is NOT an appreciable bandwith hogging. But it *does* eat up an IP address for a while, and if that's a problem, then that means there are less IP addresses than customer, and so it's not really an unlimited access service.
If the whole dang power grid goes down, then it doesn't matter whether you have a working internet connection or not, because there won't be enough electricity to run the communication system's machinery anyway. Yeah, there will be giant server rooms with big UPSes on them, but for the internet connection to operate you have to have EVERY step along the way working, including your own computer, every repeater transformer along the way, every router and every hub, not to mention that the server you are talking to on the other end has to be functioning too. With enough battery backup that stuff can function for a short while, but not for long.
You're of course forgetting about the possibility that the person reading is aware that NONE of the gnome-compliant window managers are being further developed EXCEPT for metacity, thus making their existance rather irrelevant if talking about what direction I expect gnome to take in the future.
If the programmer in charge of the project SAYS in plain English that he doesn't want to support the features I like, (especially in a belittling manner full of lies) then it's perfectly reasonable to "write it off" as something that won't go in a future direction I will want to follow. If you're an idiot, you might equate that with "wanting him to conform to my views", but that just demonstrates your inability to think.
I would definitely say MacOS is no better from a usability standpoint than Windows, and my personal experience is that it's less usable (for me).
But would that have been the case back when Windows was just a large bulky application that ran on DOS? Remember it's back *THEN* that Microsoft beat out Apple. Today they're just riding the momentum from that, because the software industry has a huge inertia due to 'network effect'. Back when both platforms were on equal footing and had a chance to compete fairly, Windows beat Mac *even though* it didn't have a good interface back then. Hence my call of "bullshit" to the claim that the UI is the reason Microsoft is winning. It has to be something else because they were the *worst* UI of the field back when there were viable competitors in the '80s. Mac, Amiga, Atari ST - all of these were contemporaries with Windows 3.0, and somehow ended up losing to it. Therefore the user interface CANNOT be the reason for their success.
This is proof that moderation is broken, and it's why I never bother using it when I keep getting invited to by the site. In the last 10 minutes I've seen this post sway between a score of 0 and 3 and back. People are just moderating based on what they agree with, not on the actual insightfulness or flamefulness of the post.
Slashdot Mirror
adoption of the Delcaration of Independance, followed by a war
The first fighting broke out *before* the Delcaration was signed, much less delivered to Britain.
You need not use Metacity with GNOME.
Today, yes. Tomorrow, No. This is about future directions.
Rest of bullshit ignored.
That implies that "I disagree with you" is actually the same as "you're wrong"
What convoluted path of "logic" lead you to that?
I think Havoc is doing the right thing by doing the ones that make sense over time and getting the implementation right instead of adding hack after hack because users can't wait for the WM to mature.
That approach is NOT what the manifesto says is happening. The manifesto says those things will never be added.
On a scale of configurability, it ranks like this:
Gnome 1.x - most configurable.
KDE - medium amount of configurability.
Gnome 2.x - least configurable.
So, those who like configurability lost the most configurable platform when Gnome 2 came out and Gnome 1.x was no longer being worked on, and had to settle for the one that *previously* had been less configurable - KDE. No, KDE is not "exactly" what we want. It's just the only thing left nowadays.
A broadband connection is generally 24/7, and there are always enough IP addresses for every subscriber.
With shifting IP addresses via DHCP you don't need to actually have an address always assigned. When you try doing something, it can renegotiate for an address at that point.
That's equivilent to just "a bandwith hog is running something". Since nobody would ever really say such a pointless thing, I doubt your claim that this is what you meant. Hence my comment.
You are operating under the assumption that the prompt printing wasn't included in the characters he was talking about. If the discussion is about unix philosophy in general, then the terseness or verbosity of the shell is still part of the same issue even though it's a seperate program. To tell you the program is done at least SOME character has to be sent to the terminal. The fact that it might be the shell that's actually doing it doesn't change that statement.
That's still wrong. A bandwith hog is anyone using bandwith. If you download 50GB in a month off of web HTTP downloads, that's still just as much of a hog as someone transferring that much over P2P.
And if your specification of 'etc' was meant to cover everything as you are implying, then that renders your statement utterly pointless because it equates to "bandwith hogs are using something or other."
There are only a limited number of dial-up lines supported
The context of the discussion was about broadband ISPs, not dial-up.
So you have to use a different keypress to cut and paste sometimes. BFD. That happens in Windows too. (It's not ALWAYS CTRL-X,C,V, at about the same rate of occurrance as 'middle button' fails to be the right way to paste in a Unix X app.)
In British English, "toilet" often refers to the whole room, and the whole, uhhhm - experience - of taking care of sanitary needs, including not only getting rid of waste, but also the washing up afterward, the sink, the soap, and so on. (So it's closer to the orginal French 'toilet'.) In American English, "toilet" refers to JUST the physical chair-like thing that flushes. It never refers to the room as a whole. Therefore putting the word "toilet" on the door *does not* mean the same thing as "washroom" or "restroom". It's not just a euphamism thing. In American English, putting the word "toilet" on the door is like labelling it, "crapping chair", and has that level of connotation.
And the evil thing is that this will hold up in court, because juries and judges don't know the subject material, and attempts to educate them will fall of deaf ears.
Why is bandwidth offered so asymmetrically?
Because the company wants to limit bandwith as much as they can without pissing off customers. That means that the types of bandwith the majority like to use is sacrosanct, while the types of bandiwth that only the minority of geeks use is not. That's why you get such unfair policies as Windows shares allowed while NFS shares are not - even though they have the same exact purpose and similar bandwith usage. That's why they allow massive downloads but not uploads. Most customers don't upload much, so they can put that cap in place and only piss off a minority.
And, as a further bonus to the company, they can slander those who complain about this policy by putting forth the lie that they only want these services for some illicit purpose - the slander is very effectice because it's only hitting services used by a miniority of geeks - so the general population of their customers doesn't know that they are being lied to.
Frankly, if you need to use their support site, you *should* be using windows/IE, since you're obviously not capable of handling anything else.
Yes, because of course all possible problems that might make you need to check the support site must be caused by the end user's own ignorance. The ISP itself *never* messes up, right? And you *never* need to look and see if other people have had the same problem as you and it's endemic and not worth trying to fix on your end. Nope, that *never* happens to anybody.
Idiot.
Note, you also often need to look at the support site to find some kinds of information that NO AMOUNT OF EXPERTISE will tell you - like what the IP addresses are that the site uses for certain things, or what their terms of service are.
90% of the bandwidth (P2P, running servers, etc...)
I am sick and tired of this assumption on the part of ISPs that you can make a fair one-to-one mapping between type of protocol and amount of bandwith. Because some people abuse bandwith with P2P, they start banning all P2P. Because some people put up popular servers that eat up bandwith, they assume that anyone running a server must be a bandwith hog. (Screw you, what if I just want to be able to transfer some work files from home to work and visa versa from work, and so I need a server of some sort up at home? That's NOT taking much bandwith, but because it's the same *type* of protocol as some that do get abused, they get painted with the same brush and the terms of service disallow that kind of usage.)
I really hate this because it leads to an internet which really *does* divide the content providers from the content consumers in a way the internet was never meant to do.
They have every right to enact whatever business policy they wish. But when they LIE about what that policy is to customers who are purchasing service, that's called fraud, and they *don't* have the right to do that. If you say "unlimited" when you really meant "there exist some limits", then you are lying. The lasiez-faire free market concept works ONLY if companies are forced to be truthful. If you let them get away with making false claims, then the checks and balances of the system don't work.
Being online 24/7 is NOT a bandwith problem. It's a limited IP address pool problem. If someone's machine is online, but only sending and receiving minimal little 'keep alive' packets and not much more, then it's not taking up any relevant amount of bandwith. If I want to 'ping' my home machine, or leave it running so I can ftp a few megs from work to home before driving home, that is NOT an appreciable bandwith hogging. But it *does* eat up an IP address for a while, and if that's a problem, then that means there are less IP addresses than customer, and so it's not really an unlimited access service.
If the whole dang power grid goes down, then it doesn't matter whether you have a working internet connection or not, because there won't be enough electricity to run the communication system's machinery anyway. Yeah, there will be giant server rooms with big UPSes on them, but for the internet connection to operate you have to have EVERY step along the way working, including your own computer, every repeater transformer along the way, every router and every hub, not to mention that the server you are talking to on the other end has to be functioning too. With enough battery backup that stuff can function for a short while, but not for long.
You aren't looking far enough back. Windows 95 came out *AFTER* Windows had already won out.
You're of course forgetting about the possibility that the person reading is aware that NONE of the gnome-compliant window managers are being further developed EXCEPT for metacity, thus making their existance rather irrelevant if talking about what direction I expect gnome to take in the future.
If the programmer in charge of the project SAYS in plain English that he doesn't want to support the features I like, (especially in a belittling manner full of lies) then it's perfectly reasonable to "write it off" as something that won't go in a future direction I will want to follow. If you're an idiot, you might equate that with "wanting him to conform to my views", but that just demonstrates your inability to think.
You can use any GNOME-compliant WM.
Yeah, both of them. The one that development was halted on, and the one that has a manefesto guaranteeing that I won't like it's future development.
I would definitely say MacOS is no better from a usability standpoint than Windows, and my personal experience is that it's less usable (for me).
But would that have been the case back when Windows was just a large bulky application that ran on DOS? Remember it's back *THEN* that Microsoft beat out Apple. Today they're just riding the momentum from that, because the software industry has a huge inertia due to 'network effect'. Back when both platforms were on equal footing and had a chance to compete fairly, Windows beat Mac *even though* it didn't have a good interface back then. Hence my call of "bullshit" to the claim that the UI is the reason Microsoft is winning. It has to be something else because they were the *worst* UI of the field back when there were viable competitors in the '80s. Mac, Amiga, Atari ST - all of these were contemporaries with Windows 3.0, and somehow ended up losing to it. Therefore the user interface CANNOT be the reason for their success.
This is proof that moderation is broken, and it's why I never bother using it when I keep getting invited to by the site. In the last 10 minutes I've seen this post sway between a score of 0 and 3 and back. People are just moderating based on what they agree with, not on the actual insightfulness or flamefulness of the post.