Personally, I could care less about how much it costs as long as it is reliable, functional, and stays that way... I could never say that about windows xp/vista...
I could, and can and do. 100% reliability and functional, and it stays that way. To each their own, and fortunately, we're all past the high school mentality of letting objects define our personalities and identities, which is another thing we could less about it, at least with the people I work with and collaborate with on video, web, and print projects which feature a mix of platforms from OS X to Windows to Linux to Unix. It's the people that count. If they get the job done who cares how they do it (ethically at least) and what they prefer to do it with. The end result is what counts and we're all individuals with different preferences and work methodologies.
It's also quite obvious that experience differs rather considerably when it comes to hardware/software reliability. Illustrator crashed on me once. I hear it can crash on the Mac too. But I'm sure it's never crashed for others.
Platformism. Who needs it?
Re:A whole book just for themes?
on
Drupal 5 Themes
·
· Score: 1
Indeed. You just create your own CSS and XHTML and go, no theming system to adapt to (or you can download free "themes" of course.) I've converted many sites to MODx very quickly.
But CMS's are like operating systems to people I find. Reasons for loving or despising them are as varied as the individuals who use them. I hated all CMS's that I had to learn a templating system rather than being able to use standard HTML and that, together with MODx's modular, don't have to hack the core approach, and the wayfinder, got me onto to it.
I did not care for Drupal's system at all, or much worse, Joomla, but interests and features of importance vary. You need about a page to explain MODx's templates.
If IE's not just a monopoly-reinforcement tool for other MS products, why can't we get it for Solaris, OS X, and AIX? Lots of other browser vendors with fewer resources support a much wider array of targets. It'd be great to see IE for Linux, too, but we know that's too much to ask.
IE was available for Solaris and HP-UX until version 5. No one bothered to use them primarily because these were hardly desktop environments. It just wasn't worth their time any longer.
People choose Macs for stability and freedom from viruses and other shitware (the reasons we wipe Windows and install Linux) and because some high end graphics programs either aren't ported to Windows or are ported badly./
Of course many of us run Windows free of viruses, malware, and shitware, and with high end graphics program that are ported to Windows, and ported well. We edit video, create books, posters, illustrations, animations, etc. We also realize it's no longer the early 90s.
I cannot recommend enough, Web Standards Solutions by Dan Cederholm, and CSS Mastery, by Andy Budd (with others.) Excellent examples, reasons listed for the methods used, possible problems, and browser issues. Beautifully written with very nice and simple examples. The fundamentals done right in my opinion.
Seconded. Apple has just given me a fabulous reason not to by a Mac if Safari Windows renders in the same manner as Safari Mac, which is likely it would seem.
Experiences differ. I usually get 3 - 5 years out of a PC and then still use it as a backup/server or give it away. The reason I upgrade? Price/Performance. The Intel chipset gets far more quicker than the Gx line. It's just a personal preference, not a necessity.
While that's true... Ask an Adobe customer whether they feel they be charged for Adobe abusing their monopoly and you'll get an affirmative answer.
Not me. Though I'd prefer that Adobe and MM have been kept separate the price of the new bundle for me (which is perfect for my needs) is an amazing bargain. Basically $150 per app. Amazing value.
It's about to get worse with CS3 too, it's split into Vista style packages so now you have to really pay a lot of money to get the programs you need to do business as a professional in the creative industry.
Some do no doubt, but not me. The Design Premium package is perfect for me.
80% of my work is done on Adobe products and I really would like to change that.
Me too. I really wish Linux would get a decent font system and Adobe ported their apps to Linux.
ClearType works wonderfully on my LCDs, much better with it enable than without it enabled. Worked wonderfully on my CRTs, when I used them, as well. Others report different results. Results, therefore, may vary.
Don't forget the NeoNode, which has been out since July 2004 (or at least version 1 has).
As for the ripping off argument. It's usually absurd. Vague similarities become emotional touch points. Yes, it's true that a lot of people say everyone rips things off from Apple but that's just utter nonsense. Can you imagine if the idea of the icon on a desktop computer or other electronic devices with GUI interfaces was under the stewardship of one company. Many companies use ideas that have already been used by others, and often improve on them (i.e. the iPhone is, at least in my judgment, an improvement on many of things the NeoNode is), or add their own flair to it. I always say, "This will only be cool and great once Apple invents it."
You only have to look at the history of automobiles to see how cross creativity and innovation in action. You don't see many people going on about how Renault invented the dual overhead cam shaft so every other car company that uses DOHC engines RIPPED OFF RENAULT!
I expect to go to any computer retailer and be able to buy a computer without Windows pre-installed. That's all I want..
I do this all the time. It's unfortunate, however, that the big name vendors, like Dell, HP, IBM, etc. and so forth don't have the option, whatsoever, to offer say, oh I don't know, an alternative like OS X.
Linux is definitely an alternative, but I'd love to know how many consumers will:
Buy a system from anyone other than Apple without an OS
Buy a system and insist that Linux is on it
I think that is in the real of specialized users still.
It sure is. The point is, the number of pages don't dictate whether something is a failure or success, which was the premise of this particular part of the thread.
If you need a 536 page book to "Master" such a trivial part of web development as page and text formatting then CSS is a failure. Are there any wysiwyg "Html editors" that produce portable CSS? If so, then the book is obsolete.
O'Reilly's latest HTML book is 670 pages. I guess that means HTML is a failure...
As many have said in this string of posts, without the use of tables, it is no longer a job for the general web creator to create a three column lay out, without being a complete CSS guru and even for them it gives them headaches.
It's very easy and requires less code than using a table.
In my estimation, what the designers of CSS have managed to do is crush the life out of the promise that once was the a usable, if slightly clumsy, way to present information.
In my estimation, they've given the web new life and promise, and increased interchangeability, not to mention making changes.
As an example. Using un-ordered lists to create menus. Its a complete and total hack, and I mean to use the word hack in the most derogitory manner possible. Instead of comming up with a menu framework that was designed from the ground up to be menus they used this stupid hack and think they are so cool. News for you, your not cool, your not smart nor are you clever.
How is it a hack? It makes semantic sense. You have a list of menu items. As for being cool, who cares about that nonsense.
There are elements of CSS that are quite functional and workable, but for the most part its just a cludge and a bad one at that. Lets take for example something that could make all of our lives easier, the basic ability to have include files. All you CSS lovers hate frames and you hate tables. Well with frames I can make ONE file contain the entire drop down menu section. I create it in one file and ONLY one file. I edit it in ONE file and ONE file only. So while you geniouses are comming up with HTML, DHTML, XHTML, CSS1, CSS2, etc. ad nausium, you cant seem to fit that simple part in there. Every freeking page has to have the complete menuing system in it and if anything has to be changed in it, like CONTENT someone has to go and edit 1 to n freeking html files, sorry, but for that you guys just plain SUCK.
I use include files all the time. CSS in no way prevents you from using them. Furthermore, the style sheets are very much like include files in that you go to one single sheet and make changes and the changes are reflected site wide. Every page in a CSS programmed site does not have to have the menu in every page, you just use an include to avoid that. It's interesting that you're calling people geniuses in a derogatory manner when you don't know what you're talking about.
Now I just know someone will think in regard to that last bit, that it should just be in a database! Well sure as shootin! Except why on fucking earth does a 10 page web site need to have a complete CRM system behind it? Why should it even have a database! Then you will say, but it is only 10 pages, you should write a VI or better yet an EMACS macro to handle that. Better yet anyone who would suggest that should get rectaly examined by the phalus of a donky. UL's twisted into menu's are not trivial and can be broken quite easily. Develop a MENU interface if you are determiend to turn something loosley associated with desktop publishing into a full on interactive bit of software.
No you don't know what someone will think in regard to the last bit, unless of course they don't know what they're talking about whatsoever, like yourself. Databases are great for data heavy, frequently changing sites that can be changed by non-developers, but simple lesson in some basic editing is fine for a small site. Just have them edit the include files that you, for some reason, think are news to everyone.
The bottom line is this, if you want people to really embrace CSS then FIX IT. Get the venders to fix the browsers and if they wont fix it, then stop twisting CSS all over itself to accomodate them and just let it those browsers fail and the market will fix it.
Many people are embracing it. They embrace it so much that they actually know what they're talking about. Fixes have been a priority for most vendors as well. There is some twisting in regard to IE, but until recently, that particular browser didn't move at all for years in terms of development.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I could care less about how much it costs as long as it is reliable, functional, and stays that way... I could never say that about windows xp/vista...
I could, and can and do. 100% reliability and functional, and it stays that way. To each their own, and fortunately, we're all past the high school mentality of letting objects define our personalities and identities, which is another thing we could less about it, at least with the people I work with and collaborate with on video, web, and print projects which feature a mix of platforms from OS X to Windows to Linux to Unix. It's the people that count. If they get the job done who cares how they do it (ethically at least) and what they prefer to do it with. The end result is what counts and we're all individuals with different preferences and work methodologies.
It's also quite obvious that experience differs rather considerably when it comes to hardware/software reliability. Illustrator crashed on me once. I hear it can crash on the Mac too. But I'm sure it's never crashed for others.
Platformism. Who needs it?
Indeed. You just create your own CSS and XHTML and go, no theming system to adapt to (or you can download free "themes" of course.) I've converted many sites to MODx very quickly.
But CMS's are like operating systems to people I find. Reasons for loving or despising them are as varied as the individuals who use them. I hated all CMS's that I had to learn a templating system rather than being able to use standard HTML and that, together with MODx's modular, don't have to hack the core approach, and the wayfinder, got me onto to it.
I did not care for Drupal's system at all, or much worse, Joomla, but interests and features of importance vary. You need about a page to explain MODx's templates.
If IE's not just a monopoly-reinforcement tool for other MS products, why can't we get it for Solaris, OS X, and AIX? Lots of other browser vendors with fewer resources support a much wider array of targets. It'd be great to see IE for Linux, too, but we know that's too much to ask.
IE was available for Solaris and HP-UX until version 5. No one bothered to use them primarily because these were hardly desktop environments. It just wasn't worth their time any longer.
It doesn't require a Strict doctype: http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch/table.html for a chart.
Yeah, in Windows, you absolutely need to right-click.
No you don't. You don't even have to use the mouse at all.
You don't have to hit ALT + Keyboard Shortcut for several menu options either, but you can.
People choose Macs for stability and freedom from viruses and other shitware (the reasons we wipe Windows and install Linux) and because some high end graphics programs either aren't ported to Windows or are ported badly./
Of course many of us run Windows free of viruses, malware, and shitware, and with high end graphics program that are ported to Windows, and ported well. We edit video, create books, posters, illustrations, animations, etc. We also realize it's no longer the early 90s.
And they're great for expansion too!
Agreed. It's absurd to have to use software to activate a phone service. Utterly, and completely absurd. Is this actually true?
I cannot recommend enough, Web Standards Solutions by Dan Cederholm, and CSS Mastery, by Andy Budd (with others.) Excellent examples, reasons listed for the methods used, possible problems, and browser issues. Beautifully written with very nice and simple examples. The fundamentals done right in my opinion.
It's not industry changing if number 2 has been doing it. I guess this is another it only was really invented when Apple does it event.
Seconded. Apple has just given me a fabulous reason not to by a Mac if Safari Windows renders in the same manner as Safari Mac, which is likely it would seem.
Truth is, somebody decided long ago that they'd use this sort of nonsense to criticize what's really an industry-changing development.
What's industry changing about DRM free music? eMusic, the number 2 online music seller, has had DRM-free music from the get go.
If not the DRM free bit then what is this "industry-changing" development?
Experiences differ. I usually get 3 - 5 years out of a PC and then still use it as a backup/server or give it away. The reason I upgrade? Price/Performance. The Intel chipset gets far more quicker than the Gx line. It's just a personal preference, not a necessity.
Or did they "borrow" the flat black look from Apple's Pro tools suites? Hmmmm...
And Apple, who, by this logic, borrowed it from Discreet. Hmmm... Whatever.
While that's true... Ask an Adobe customer whether they feel they be charged for Adobe abusing their monopoly and you'll get an affirmative answer.
Not me. Though I'd prefer that Adobe and MM have been kept separate the price of the new bundle for me (which is perfect for my needs) is an amazing bargain. Basically $150 per app. Amazing value.
It's about to get worse with CS3 too, it's split into Vista style packages so now you have to really pay a lot of money to get the programs you need to do business as a professional in the creative industry.
Some do no doubt, but not me. The Design Premium package is perfect for me.
80% of my work is done on Adobe products and I really would like to change that.
Me too. I really wish Linux would get a decent font system and Adobe ported their apps to Linux.
Pretty much. This isn't "Apple Vista" we're talking about here.
Quite right. Copland/Rhapsody was Apple's Vista.
ClearType works wonderfully on my LCDs, much better with it enable than without it enabled. Worked wonderfully on my CRTs, when I used them, as well. Others report different results. Results, therefore, may vary.
DS 9 is my favourite of the Treks, followed by TNG/Enterprise, then TOS, then Voyager. Opinions, it seems, greatly differ.
Don't forget the NeoNode, which has been out since July 2004 (or at least version 1 has).
As for the ripping off argument. It's usually absurd. Vague similarities become emotional touch points. Yes, it's true that a lot of people say everyone rips things off from Apple but that's just utter nonsense. Can you imagine if the idea of the icon on a desktop computer or other electronic devices with GUI interfaces was under the stewardship of one company. Many companies use ideas that have already been used by others, and often improve on them (i.e. the iPhone is, at least in my judgment, an improvement on many of things the NeoNode is), or add their own flair to it. I always say, "This will only be cool and great once Apple invents it."
You only have to look at the history of automobiles to see how cross creativity and innovation in action. You don't see many people going on about how Renault invented the dual overhead cam shaft so every other car company that uses DOHC engines RIPPED OFF RENAULT!
I expect to go to any computer retailer and be able to buy a computer without Windows pre-installed. That's all I want..
I do this all the time. It's unfortunate, however, that the big name vendors, like Dell, HP, IBM, etc. and so forth don't have the option, whatsoever, to offer say, oh I don't know, an alternative like OS X.
Linux is definitely an alternative, but I'd love to know how many consumers will:
- Buy a system from anyone other than Apple without an OS
- Buy a system and insist that Linux is on it
I think that is in the real of specialized users still.What nobody seems to have questioned is why any Mac or OS user would want Vista in the first place, let alone consider paying for it.
Different people, different needs, likes, desires, etc. Simple really.
Just think of something you like or are interested in and then think about how someone you know isn't. It's like that.
It sure is. The point is, the number of pages don't dictate whether something is a failure or success, which was the premise of this particular part of the thread.
If you need a 536 page book to "Master" such a trivial part of web development as page and text formatting then CSS is a failure. Are there any wysiwyg "Html editors" that produce portable CSS? If so, then the book is obsolete.
O'Reilly's latest HTML book is 670 pages. I guess that means HTML is a failure...
As many have said in this string of posts, without the use of tables, it is no longer a job for the general web creator to create a three column lay out, without being a complete CSS guru and even for them it gives them headaches.
It's very easy and requires less code than using a table.
In my estimation, what the designers of CSS have managed to do is crush the life out of the promise that once was the a usable, if slightly clumsy, way to present information.
In my estimation, they've given the web new life and promise, and increased interchangeability, not to mention making changes.
As an example. Using un-ordered lists to create menus. Its a complete and total hack, and I mean to use the word hack in the most derogitory manner possible. Instead of comming up with a menu framework that was designed from the ground up to be menus they used this stupid hack and think they are so cool. News for you, your not cool, your not smart nor are you clever.
How is it a hack? It makes semantic sense. You have a list of menu items. As for being cool, who cares about that nonsense.
There are elements of CSS that are quite functional and workable, but for the most part its just a cludge and a bad one at that. Lets take for example something that could make all of our lives easier, the basic ability to have include files. All you CSS lovers hate frames and you hate tables. Well with frames I can make ONE file contain the entire drop down menu section. I create it in one file and ONLY one file. I edit it in ONE file and ONE file only. So while you geniouses are comming up with HTML, DHTML, XHTML, CSS1, CSS2, etc. ad nausium, you cant seem to fit that simple part in there. Every freeking page has to have the complete menuing system in it and if anything has to be changed in it, like CONTENT someone has to go and edit 1 to n freeking html files, sorry, but for that you guys just plain SUCK.
I use include files all the time. CSS in no way prevents you from using them. Furthermore, the style sheets are very much like include files in that you go to one single sheet and make changes and the changes are reflected site wide. Every page in a CSS programmed site does not have to have the menu in every page, you just use an include to avoid that. It's interesting that you're calling people geniuses in a derogatory manner when you don't know what you're talking about.
Now I just know someone will think in regard to that last bit, that it should just be in a database! Well sure as shootin! Except why on fucking earth does a 10 page web site need to have a complete CRM system behind it? Why should it even have a database! Then you will say, but it is only 10 pages, you should write a VI or better yet an EMACS macro to handle that. Better yet anyone who would suggest that should get rectaly examined by the phalus of a donky. UL's twisted into menu's are not trivial and can be broken quite easily. Develop a MENU interface if you are determiend to turn something loosley associated with desktop publishing into a full on interactive bit of software.
No you don't know what someone will think in regard to the last bit, unless of course they don't know what they're talking about whatsoever, like yourself. Databases are great for data heavy, frequently changing sites that can be changed by non-developers, but simple lesson in some basic editing is fine for a small site. Just have them edit the include files that you, for some reason, think are news to everyone.
The bottom line is this, if you want people to really embrace CSS then FIX IT. Get the venders to fix the browsers and if they wont fix it, then stop twisting CSS all over itself to accomodate them and just let it those browsers fail and the market will fix it.
Many people are embracing it. They embrace it so much that they actually know what they're talking about. Fixes have been a priority for most vendors as well. There is some twisting in regard to IE, but until recently, that particular browser didn't move at all for years in terms of development.
What's so hard about making a three column layout in CSS? Way less code and work than using a table.