Reminds me of an old work place where, after too many idiots got infected with viruses thank to the usual "click yes to anything" mentatlity we had a security audit. So round come the security people with a tool on a floppy which was hard coded to search your "C:" drive.
Now at the time our machines were running Windows 3.1 with rather small disks (2Gb or less) and as my disk had filled up I was running using one of the drive compression tools (sorry,, can't remember which one !) This tool worked by creating a new partition (or as it was quantly known then "a D: drive") for the data and left a small "C:" partition which contained start up files and the compression/decompression code etc.
So lo and behold their scanning tool, rather than taking the average twenty minutes it had for my co workers, whizzed through my "C:" drive in about 30 seconds and found nothing. We then have something like the following conversation:
Them: "That was very fast, have you not got much data on your machine" Me "No I'm using so there's not much on the C: drive, The data's mostly on the D: drive. Don;t you want to scann this too ?" Them: "Err... We don't know about D: drives our tool only scans C: and it said you were o.k." Me (wishing to get back to doing something constructive) "O.k." Them (moving on to the next desk) "Thanks for your time"
Most entertaining.
The real point being that your advice is totally sound. Most times the people performing the checks will have an automated tool, no real understanding of what they're doing, and will be on a shitty wage. As long as you're pleasant to them and seem reasonable you'll get away with almost anything.
Sorry I;ve got to add my tuppence worth here. Using lines of code as a programmer performance metric is plain wrong.
Where I work an external agency used to do this with their coders. Lo and behold on any code they touched all things like array initialisation were performed like so:
array_element(0) == nil; array_element(1) == nil; array_element(2) == nil; etc. etc.
Note also that despite the fact the compiler automatically initalised array elements they were also all explicitly initialised because that was another line of code written for that day. Hell some of these clownns used to add completely unused areas to the code just so they could write vast amounts of initialisation code (I swear at least one of them had a set of routines which wrote all this crap for him)
As for subroutines forget it. If the same code was needed multiple times it was simply inlined every single time it was needed. They left an awful, awful mess behind.
Measuring programmer performance by lines of code written is just dumb.
Given that Firefox is an app specifically designed to use the internet just what the hell are extensions doing having a hard coded "Max Version" setting in a config file ? Why are they not reading this from the 'net ?
Here's how it should work.
1 When an extension first runs get the current "Max Supported Version" from the web. Store this locally.
2 On all subsequent loads of the extension check current browser version against current "Max Supported Version".
3 If the browser version is too high go to the web again to check whether the "Max Supported Version" has changed. If it has update local setting and carry on. If it hasn't then maybe try to load the extension anyway failing gracefully if an error occurs.
Sorry but isn't this sort of behaviour bloody obvious for a web based application ?
Just because it's allegedly for "Law Enforcement" doesn't change the fundamental principle.
No third party is going to run anything on my PCs without me giving my express permission - which will consist of me deliberately choosing to install and run that software.
Any anti virus/spyware vendor that doesn't detect and remove this scumware are incompetent.
Still, as usual, if you don't use Windows there's probably nothing to worry about.
As usual this is just another load of old crap spouted by some bean counter or other.
At any place of employment there is (usually) a job of work to be done. If the work is getting done, on time, within budget, and to the satisfaction of the customer (assuming there is one:) who cares what the people doing the work get up to during the time they're at work ?
The real question should be if we took out all the anal retentive bean counters who produce reports like this and shot them would anyone notice ?
They've got this the wrong way round. They should have been breeding humans that can tolerate having a cat in the environment:)
After all it's a human with the intolerance problem (who probably didn't get to play around in the dirt/with "wild" animals enough as a child so didn't receive the trigger stimulus for the necessary bits of the immune system to develop)
Re:Almost sounds like KDE 3... MOD INSIGHTFUL
on
GNOME 2.16 Released
·
· Score: 1
P.S. And before y'all think I'm just having a rant one thing I forgot to mention is how excellent the new keyboardable "Find filestore objects by pressing keys" function is in Nautilus.
The fact it was missing in previous releases was a real usability problem. This new feature, where you can type the letters of a directory/file and the focus will move to the object "whose name starts with the letters you've just typed" is a truly splendid thing.
Much better than the simple "move to next object whose name starts with the letter you've just pressed" in Windows Explorer. This is one area that the GNOME devs have got round to adding a feature that really should have been in from day one but have at least done so in a new and superior manner.
I just wish the GNOME developers would put more effort into this sort of thing and less into eye candy...
Re:Almost sounds like KDE 3... MOD INSIGHTFUL
on
GNOME 2.16 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Mod parent insightful. This is absolutely not a troll. I, for one, whole heartedly agree with these comments.
Why has it taken this long to be able to set recursieve file permissions ?
Why has it taken until now to be able to edit the menu (smeg notwithstanding) ?
These features should have been in from release 1.0
Sorry but GNOME really does suffer from some pretty basic usability problem which, as the parent posints out, could mostly be fixed by taking note of some of the good aspects of GUI design that have been put into place over the last 20 years, and especially by allowing users to set options as they want - not what the designers think is "best for them".
The "we know best" attitude is condescending and hinders usability. The "proper" way to do it is to have everytthing come "out of the box" with basic defaults but let the user "open up" the interface as they learn it. If you're really worried about your poor users provide a "reset to defaults" option.
The parent post simply points out some obvious problems with GNOME, the fact it got modded Troll points out some problems with blinkered moderation.
And yes I am a GNOME user - I have an Ubuntu desktop at home. I mostly like GNOME but it always, always sends me into a swearing frenzy due to basic usability problems.
The big trouble with focusing on eye candy is that GNOME has still got so much to do in terms of usability.
For instance the support for consistent cut & paste, consistent support for keyboard shortcuts and a focus on providing functionality akin to the spirit of *NIXs "everything is a file" metaphor.
For instance "all text should be accessible". In other words whereever I can see some text in GNOME I should be able to copy & paste that text (using the standard selection methods and Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-Ins, Shift-Ins, menu items etc. etc.) This functionality should be available no matter whether the text is being displayed using a widget such as a list, button, status bar or text area etc. etc. Any application that displays a list should also allow me to save that list as a plain text file seperated by something like commas (anyone for CSV ?)
And this functionality should be provided in the widget set itself so that simply by adding a widget to a GNOME application the features get built in without the developer having to realise why they're required or, if they've got any sense, eventually getting round to adding them after complaints from irate users.
Any application that displays a list of files should allow me to double click on a file (or press "carriage return" or enter) and launch the default application associated with that file. Any application whatsoever. If I can't do this why is it showing me the file list anyway ? In exactly rhe same way I should always be able to select file(s) from that list and use copy & paste etc. Going back to my previous point I shuld also be able to save that file list in CSV format.
Wherever there's a right mouse button menu this should also be available by pressing the right mouse button on the keyboard. Maybe a MAC keyboard doesn't have a "right mouse button" (don't kno never used n one;) ? So what. They miss out, the rest of the world that does have one (i.e. the vast majority of us) gets to use it in the manner it was designed.
On another note then for gods sake stop messing around with the right click menus. Using Nautilus you can select "paste" from the "edit" menu. But you can't right click in the file area and select "edit" > "paste" as doing so selects the nearest file to the cursor and removes ("greys out") the paste option.
Personalised, "intelligent" menus are simply crap. Look at Microsoft Office or XP hiding things away etc. If there's data on the clipboard that can be processed by the application then paste should be available. Hiding the option is simply dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
Personally I use GNOME because I use Ubuntu but I find it so bloody hard to do anything productive due to it missing so many simple, easy to implement, features that it usually send me swearing back to Windows to get things done. I'm so fed up with Nautilus that I now share my home folder on the network and do all my file management from Windows Explorer.
So enough with the eye candy already. Get the cake properly baked before you start adding fancy icing.
I'm not sure where I got this quote from (possibly even a/. post !) but it sums this up quite nicely:
"New Labour see a problem and a headline - then address the headline".
This is such a bad bill it's hardly worth discussing. They might as well make it illegal to own war films (very, very violent and displaying a definite lust for death - You could make a very good case for labelling then as violent pornography)
As in every instance where a twisted individual has forcibly projected their inner sickness onto an innocent third party I have every sympathy for the victim and their family. But this sort of knee jerk legislation will achieve nothing. It will not make anyone safer and it will not prevent further such murders.
So the obvious question is exactly how will "violent pornography" be defined ? From my (very, very) limited watching of current UK TV I suspect that you could class quite a bit of the current output as violent pornography - especially the utter crap put out under the moniker of "soap operas" which seem to feature nothing but fucking and fighting.
Oh well, maybe I suppose I'd best get up early tomorrow so I can take my DVD copy of "Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!" down to the local cop shop to check up on its legal status...:)
Personally when I'm at work I only look at my emails about once or, if I get really bored, possibly twice, a day. With my private email accounts it's now got to the point where it may be as little as once a week. There's just that much crap being transmitted by email that I can barely be bothered to use it at all any more.
At home it's the never ending spam that's worn me down. My ISP runs spam filters and I run local spam filtering prior to downloading any actual messages and, whilst the level of spam became reasonable for a while, it's getting worse all the time and I get really bored deleting all the crap - even though most spam is automatically marked for me by software.
At work 70% of the email is useless noise which has been forwarded down the entire management chain with a message to "cascade to all staff". Sadly these message are usually along the lines of "Fred Bloggs has just been appointed as deputy leader to Mike Hunt and will now be reporting to Freda Smiggles" and whilst this is obviously a source of pride for Mr Bloggs, and undoubtedly useful for anyone who has dealings with Mr. Hunt and Ms. Smiggles, it has absolutely nothing to do with me or the team I work for. And in case you're wondering the other 30% consists of:
10% poor quality or old jokes, "unfunny" images and simply awful powerpoint slide shows. 9.9% good jokes or "funny" images. 0.1% funny powerpoint slideshows. 4% false rumours, 4% true rumours and 2% useful information.
Luckily though most of the mangement stuff get's processed by my mail filters so that it's automatically "marked as read" and moved into a spam folder (which is named "Management Information":) as I simply can't be bothered reading it. It's somewhat depressing really as everyone is aware of the problem and if there's actually important information in one of these mails then either a telephone call will ripple down the management chain or there'll be a desk visit to pass on the information as well.
I've found that the more prevalent the use of email technology, the poorer the "signal to noise" ratio has become. I therefore long ago took the decision to give email less status than normal mail. So I have a quick scan first thing in the morning, seperate out the stuff that looks interesting and then either bin or ignore the rest.
If I'm sent something that requires a reply then I'll usually get round to it but very rarely with much regard to timing. I also always refuse to allow anything like "receipt reports" or "the email has been opened reports" and if I ever lose the ability to do this I'll just not run my mail client more than once a week.
So if you're expecting a reply to an email you've sent me then don't hold your breath. I'll do it when I get round to it. But by the same token when I send emails I don't expect a reply in any great hurry so at least I'm consistent:)
Personally I think the whole idea of a letter, whether transported via a physical medium or the aether, is to facilitate offline communication. You send it when you feel like it and I reply when I feel like it. That's a civilised way to communicate.
Devices and methods which facilitate urgent communication should be used sparingly and should be restricted to life changing/threatening events such as a loved one being taken ill or imminent disaster. Personally my job involves me concentrating on the matter in hand and I do not appreciate being continually interrupted with trivial crap.
And whilst we're at it what about the utterly shite DVD remote control interface.
What cretin decided that pressing the "play" button would not in fact play the film ? What idiot decided that you have to select play from a menu and press "ok" instead ?
So now the entire worlds mothers, grandparents, the elderly and infirm etc. all sit there in total frustration pressing the play button and nothing happens.
Every other media playback device produced in the last 20 years used the play button to play the content. But no... DVD has to be different.
Which uterrly inept, clueless imbecile thought that up ? And then there's the two brain cell brigade who then went and copied it.
Films are no longer made to express an artists vision of a story. They are made to collect money.
If the preview audience don't tick all the right boxes the film gets cut to ribbons and new "feel good" endings get tagged on whether this ruins the story or not. Either that or something ridiculous gets put in to make things "more exciting" e.g. killer bees in the utterly pointless remake of the Wicker Man.
The film industries are run for money men, by money men. That's why the majority of films produced today are utter crap.
In fact the remake of the Wicker Man sums up the modern film industry for me. Take an excellent film (which had already been butchered by having the original directors cut chopped to bits) remake it for American audiences (i.e. spell everything out in big letters and speak slowly;), then add some useless fluff to it, and spoil the whole thing. Pathetic.
If the film industry were interested in painting they'd "remake" Picassos "Guernica" by putting it in proper perspective. Thank %INSERT_FAVOURITE_DEITY% they aren't !
Well yet again the primitive file systems of PC operating systems makes me smile.
I've spent large parts of my working life using Fujitsus (ex ICL) Virtual Machine Environment (VME) which features file generations. When you edit a file you don't overwrite the original, you create a new generation when you save the edit.
That way you can always go back to previous generations should you so desire. Need to remove all the old generations ? Simple, call "DELETE_FILE_GENERATIONS" optionally supplying the number of old generations you wish to keep (default none) Obviously any process which accesses a file will always get the highest generation of the file - unless of course a specific generation is required. So for instance opening a file to read it can be performed by the following call:
OPEN_FILE(NAME=SOMEFILE,LNAME=QQ)
Or should you want to open generation 23 of SOMEFILE you'd call:
OPEN_FILE(NAME=SOMEFILE(23),LNAME=QQ)
It's such a beautifully simple idea that I can't understand why it didn't catch on in other operating systems. In comparison having a single copy of each file is utterly primitive and no amount of undelete type facilities make up for the fact it's just a crap design.
I bet you've either never seen, or have forgotten, this story already.
Using fingerprints or other such biometric data to gain access to valuable resources is a very BAD idea. Until there's a sensor that can identify me, that I'm alive and well and not in any way stressed (no gun pressed into the small of my back etc. etc.) then the whole idea is a no no.
When I use Logic I regularly use 20 audio tracks (all with eq), several effects (on individual tracks plus some used as bus effects), several virtual instruments plus anything up to 20 MIDI tracks.
And this is all done on a machine with an Athlon XP2100 processor, 1Gb RAM, a 45 Gb system disk and a 250 Gb data disk. If memory serves me well the largest project I created had something like 30 audio tracks before I start to get glitches. Bouncing tracks is also not an option as I occassionally need to take projects into a "proper" studio where we run it over into a Mac running Pro Tools (it's easiest to do a real time dub of 8 audio tracks at a time as the loss in quality from the analogue bounce is so small as to be practically unnoticable)
And it's not so much that I've had problems, it's just that there's nothing currently on Linux that seems to do the whole integrated MIDI/Audio/Effects as well as Logic.
Sadly it doesn't. I've tried Dyne::bolic, Agnula, etc. and it's not that the tools aren't there, it's just they're not all as well integrated or as "usable" as Logic is.
I have also tried Rosegarden and whilst it's quite good it is more like a cut down Cubase. No disrespect to the devlopers but it's not in the same class as Logic (but given time...)
My best hope currently is that Ardour will get full MIDI support but I haven't got any cash to fund the development so I'll just have to wait (like everyone else)
If I can run Logic Audio, the Audiowerk 8 driver and Sound Forge on top of it then I'm definitely interested.
My primary use for my Windows box is for running Windows audio/MIDI related tools and I'd love to have an open source platform to run them on. Especially if I could strip the OS to the bare minimum that's required to run the hardware & software I want to use (i.e. complete control of which services are running, what's started at boot time etc)
As support for the Windows version of Logic Audio was discontinued I'm even keener to have an open source OS that can run these apps. I'm running Windows 2000 and will not be upgrading to XP/Vista etc. under any circumstances (too many friends/colleagues with too many problems). My current combintaion of Windows 2000 and Logic etc. allows me to get on with making music and I'm happy to stay this way but will have to face the fact that eventually support for Windows 2000 will cease.
And no I'm not going to switch to a MAC. Emagic pulled the rug from under me once (just after I'd paid for an upgrade) so I Learnnt my lesson the hard way. The only way I will ever buy commercial software again is it it comes with the source so can be supported by third parties/myself when thhe manufacturer decides to take their ball home.
Of course I'd love to be able to do what I can currently do on my Windows box using equivalent Linux tools bu sadly there is nothing yet to compare to Logic Logic. (and yes I have tried Rosegarden, Audacity, Ardour etc. etc.)
So I for one hope ReactOS goes from strength to strength.
I got sent this via email several years ago. I only hope it's true as I nearly wet myself the first time I read it:
Customer: "I got this problem. You people sent me this install disk, and now my A: drive won't work." Tech support: "Your A drive won't work ?" Customer: "That's what I said. You sent me a bad disk, it got stuck in my drive, now it won't work at all." Tech support: "Did it not install properly ? What kind of error messages did you get ?" Customer: "I didn't get any error message. The disk got stuck in the drive and wouldn't come out. So I got these pliers and tried to get it out. That didn't work either." Tech support: "You did what sir ?" Customer: "I got these pliers, and tried to get the disk out, but it wouldn't budge. I just ended up cracking the plastic stuff a bit." Tech support: "I don't understand sir, did you push the eject button ?" Customer: "No, so then I got a stick of butter and melted it and used a turkey baster and put the butter in the drive, around the disk, and that got it loose. Then I used the pliers and it came out fine. I can't believe you would send me a disk that was broke and defective." Tech support: "Let me get this clear. You put melted butter in your A: drive and used pliers to pull the disk out ?" At this point, I put the call on the speaker phone and motioned at the other techs to listen in. Tech support: "Just so I am absolutely clear on this, can you repeat what you just said ?" Customer: "I said I put butter in my A: drive to get your crappy disk out, then I had to use pliers to pull it out." Tech support: "Did you push that little button that was sticking out when the disk was in the drive, you know, the thing called the disk eject button ?" Silence. Tech support: "Sir ?" Customer: "Yes." Tech support: "Sir, did you push the eject button ?" Customer: "No, but you people are going to fix my computer, or I am going to sue you for breaking my computer ?" Tech support: "Let me get this straight. You are going to sue our company because you put the disk in the A: drive, didn't follow the instructions we sent you, didn't actually seek professional advice, didn't consult your user's manual on how to use your computer properly, instead proceeding to pour butter into the drive and physically rip the disk out ?" Customer: "Ummmm." Tech support: "Do you really think you stand a chance, since we do record every call and have it on tape ?" Customer: (now rather humbled) "But you're supposed to help !" Tech support: "I am sorry sir, but there is nothing we can do for you. Have a nice day."
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of an old work place where, after too many idiots got infected with viruses thank to the usual "click yes to anything" mentatlity we had a security audit. So round come the security people with a tool on a floppy which was hard coded to search your "C:" drive.
Now at the time our machines were running Windows 3.1 with rather small disks (2Gb or less) and as my disk had filled up I was running using one of the drive compression tools (sorry,, can't remember which one !) This tool worked by creating a new partition (or as it was quantly known then "a D: drive") for the data and left a small "C:" partition which contained start up files and the compression/decompression code etc.
So lo and behold their scanning tool, rather than taking the average twenty minutes it had for my co workers, whizzed through my "C:" drive in about 30 seconds and found nothing. We then have something like the following conversation:
Them: "That was very fast, have you not got much data on your machine"
Me "No I'm using so there's not much on the C: drive, The data's mostly on the D: drive. Don;t you want to scann this too ?"
Them: "Err... We don't know about D: drives our tool only scans C: and it said you were o.k."
Me (wishing to get back to doing something constructive) "O.k."
Them (moving on to the next desk) "Thanks for your time"
Most entertaining.
The real point being that your advice is totally sound. Most times the people performing the checks will have an automated tool, no real understanding of what they're doing, and will be on a shitty wage. As long as you're pleasant to them and seem reasonable you'll get away with almost anything.
Well I for one don't think you're weird. If it weren't for FlashBlock I wouldn't even have Flash installed.
Any Flash only sites I find get a snotty email to the webmaster and definitely don't get a sale.
Flash is usually used as the computing equivalent of an animated gif with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder).
Not only that but spider webs are covered with antiseptic agents too.
e rsmall.html
There's a small summary and a nice picture at http://www.microscopyu.com/galleries/smz1500/spid
Sorry I;ve got to add my tuppence worth here. Using lines of code as a programmer performance metric is plain wrong.
Where I work an external agency used to do this with their coders. Lo and behold on any code they touched all things like array initialisation were performed like so:
array_element(0) == nil;
array_element(1) == nil;
array_element(2) == nil;
etc. etc.
Note also that despite the fact the compiler automatically initalised array elements they were also all explicitly initialised because that was another line of code written for that day. Hell some of these clownns used to add completely unused areas to the code just so they could write vast amounts of initialisation code (I swear at least one of them had a set of routines which wrote all this crap for him)
As for subroutines forget it. If the same code was needed multiple times it was simply inlined every single time it was needed. They left an awful, awful mess behind.
Measuring programmer performance by lines of code written is just dumb.
Given that Firefox is an app specifically designed to use the internet just what the hell are extensions doing having a hard coded "Max Version" setting in a config file ? Why are they not reading this from the 'net ?
Here's how it should work.
1 When an extension first runs get the current "Max Supported Version" from the web. Store this locally.
2 On all subsequent loads of the extension check current browser version against current "Max Supported Version".
3 If the browser version is too high go to the web again to check whether the "Max Supported Version" has changed. If it has update local setting and carry on. If it hasn't then maybe try to load the extension anyway failing gracefully if an error occurs.
Sorry but isn't this sort of behaviour bloody obvious for a web based application ?
> Hindering law enforcement...
Just because it's allegedly for "Law Enforcement" doesn't change the fundamental principle.
No third party is going to run anything on my PCs without me giving my express permission - which will consist of me deliberately choosing to install and run that software.
Any anti virus/spyware vendor that doesn't detect and remove this scumware are incompetent.
Still, as usual, if you don't use Windows there's probably nothing to worry about.
Well at least we know which desktop environment mosquitos would use (hint: it's not KDE)
As usual this is just another load of old crap spouted by some bean counter or other.
:) who cares what the people doing the work get up to during the time they're at work ?
At any place of employment there is (usually) a job of work to be done. If the work is getting done, on time, within budget, and to the satisfaction of the customer (assuming there is one
The real question should be if we took out all the anal retentive bean counters who produce reports like this and shot them would anyone notice ?
They've got this the wrong way round. They should have been breeding humans that can tolerate having a cat in the environment :)
After all it's a human with the intolerance problem (who probably didn't get to play around in the dirt/with "wild" animals enough as a child so didn't receive the trigger stimulus for the necessary bits of the immune system to develop)
P.S. And before y'all think I'm just having a rant one thing I forgot to mention is how excellent the new keyboardable "Find filestore objects by pressing keys" function is in Nautilus.
The fact it was missing in previous releases was a real usability problem. This new feature, where you can type the letters of a directory/file and the focus will move to the object "whose name starts with the letters you've just typed" is a truly splendid thing.
Much better than the simple "move to next object whose name starts with the letter you've just pressed" in Windows Explorer. This is one area that the GNOME devs have got round to adding a feature that really should have been in from day one but have at least done so in a new and superior manner.
I just wish the GNOME developers would put more effort into this sort of thing and less into eye candy...
Mod parent insightful. This is absolutely not a troll. I, for one, whole heartedly agree with these comments.
Why has it taken this long to be able to set recursieve file permissions ?
Why has it taken until now to be able to edit the menu (smeg notwithstanding) ?
These features should have been in from release 1.0
Sorry but GNOME really does suffer from some pretty basic usability problem which, as the parent posints out, could mostly be fixed by taking note of some of the good aspects of GUI design that have been put into place over the last 20 years, and especially by allowing users to set options as they want - not what the designers think is "best for them".
The "we know best" attitude is condescending and hinders usability. The "proper" way to do it is to have everytthing come "out of the box" with basic defaults but let the user "open up" the interface as they learn it. If you're really worried about your poor users provide a "reset to defaults" option.
The parent post simply points out some obvious problems with GNOME, the fact it got modded Troll points out some problems with blinkered moderation.
And yes I am a GNOME user - I have an Ubuntu desktop at home. I mostly like GNOME but it always, always sends me into a swearing frenzy due to basic usability problems.
The big trouble with focusing on eye candy is that GNOME has still got so much to do in terms of usability.
;) ? So what. They miss out, the rest of the world that does have one (i.e. the vast majority of us) gets to use it in the manner it was designed.
For instance the support for consistent cut & paste, consistent support for keyboard shortcuts and a focus on providing functionality akin to the spirit of *NIXs "everything is a file" metaphor.
For instance "all text should be accessible". In other words whereever I can see some text in GNOME I should be able to copy & paste that text (using the standard selection methods and Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-Ins, Shift-Ins, menu items etc. etc.) This functionality should be available no matter whether the text is being displayed using a widget such as a list, button, status bar or text area etc. etc. Any application that displays a list should also allow me to save that list as a plain text file seperated by something like commas (anyone for CSV ?)
And this functionality should be provided in the widget set itself so that simply by adding a widget to a GNOME application the features get built in without the developer having to realise why they're required or, if they've got any sense, eventually getting round to adding them after complaints from irate users.
Any application that displays a list of files should allow me to double click on a file (or press "carriage return" or enter) and launch the default application associated with that file. Any application whatsoever. If I can't do this why is it showing me the file list anyway ? In exactly rhe same way I should always be able to select file(s) from that list and use copy & paste etc. Going back to my previous point I shuld also be able to save that file list in CSV format.
Wherever there's a right mouse button menu this should also be available by pressing the right mouse button on the keyboard. Maybe a MAC keyboard doesn't have a "right mouse button" (don't kno never used n one
On another note then for gods sake stop messing around with the right click menus. Using Nautilus you can select "paste" from the "edit" menu. But you can't right click in the file area and select "edit" > "paste" as doing so selects the nearest file to the cursor and removes ("greys out") the paste option.
Personalised, "intelligent" menus are simply crap. Look at Microsoft Office or XP hiding things away etc. If there's data on the clipboard that can be processed by the application then paste should be available. Hiding the option is simply dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
Personally I use GNOME because I use Ubuntu but I find it so bloody hard to do anything productive due to it missing so many simple, easy to implement, features that it usually send me swearing back to Windows to get things done. I'm so fed up with Nautilus that I now share my home folder on the network and do all my file management from Windows Explorer.
So enough with the eye candy already. Get the cake properly baked before you start adding fancy icing.
I'm not sure where I got this quote from (possibly even a /. post !) but it sums this up quite nicely:
:)
"New Labour see a problem and a headline - then address the headline".
This is such a bad bill it's hardly worth discussing. They might as well make it illegal to own war films (very, very violent and displaying a definite lust for death - You could make a very good case for labelling then as violent pornography)
As in every instance where a twisted individual has forcibly projected their inner sickness onto an innocent third party I have every sympathy for the victim and their family. But this sort of knee jerk legislation will achieve nothing. It will not make anyone safer and it will not prevent further such murders.
So the obvious question is exactly how will "violent pornography" be defined ? From my (very, very) limited watching of current UK TV I suspect that you could class quite a bit of the current output as violent pornography - especially the utter crap put out under the moniker of "soap operas" which seem to feature nothing but fucking and fighting.
Oh well, maybe I suppose I'd best get up early tomorrow so I can take my DVD copy of "Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!" down to the local cop shop to check up on its legal status...
Personally when I'm at work I only look at my emails about once or, if I get really bored, possibly twice, a day. With my private email accounts it's now got to the point where it may be as little as once a week. There's just that much crap being transmitted by email that I can barely be bothered to use it at all any more.
:) as I simply can't be bothered reading it. It's somewhat depressing really as everyone is aware of the problem and if there's actually important information in one of these mails then either a telephone call will ripple down the management chain or there'll be a desk visit to pass on the information as well.
:)
At home it's the never ending spam that's worn me down. My ISP runs spam filters and I run local spam filtering prior to downloading any actual messages and, whilst the level of spam became reasonable for a while, it's getting worse all the time and I get really bored deleting all the crap - even though most spam is automatically marked for me by software.
At work 70% of the email is useless noise which has been forwarded down the entire management chain with a message to "cascade to all staff". Sadly these message are usually along the lines of "Fred Bloggs has just been appointed as deputy leader to Mike Hunt and will now be reporting to Freda Smiggles" and whilst this is obviously a source of pride for Mr Bloggs, and undoubtedly useful for anyone who has dealings with Mr. Hunt and Ms. Smiggles, it has absolutely nothing to do with me or the team I work for. And in case you're wondering the other 30% consists of:
10% poor quality or old jokes, "unfunny" images and simply awful powerpoint slide shows.
9.9% good jokes or "funny" images.
0.1% funny powerpoint slideshows.
4% false rumours,
4% true rumours and
2% useful information.
Luckily though most of the mangement stuff get's processed by my mail filters so that it's automatically "marked as read" and moved into a spam folder (which is named "Management Information"
I've found that the more prevalent the use of email technology, the poorer the "signal to noise" ratio has become. I therefore long ago took the decision to give email less status than normal mail. So I have a quick scan first thing in the morning, seperate out the stuff that looks interesting and then either bin or ignore the rest.
If I'm sent something that requires a reply then I'll usually get round to it but very rarely with much regard to timing. I also always refuse to allow anything like "receipt reports" or "the email has been opened reports" and if I ever lose the ability to do this I'll just not run my mail client more than once a week.
So if you're expecting a reply to an email you've sent me then don't hold your breath. I'll do it when I get round to it. But by the same token when I send emails I don't expect a reply in any great hurry so at least I'm consistent
Personally I think the whole idea of a letter, whether transported via a physical medium or the aether, is to facilitate offline communication. You send it when you feel like it and I reply when I feel like it. That's a civilised way to communicate.
Devices and methods which facilitate urgent communication should be used sparingly and should be restricted to life changing/threatening events such as a loved one being taken ill or imminent disaster. Personally my job involves me concentrating on the matter in hand and I do not appreciate being continually interrupted with trivial crap.
Just my tuppence worth.
Well thank goodness for that.
At last someone is thinking of the children.
It would indeed.
But it would be even easier if the device took standard AA or AAA batteries then you could take several sets of rechargeables along.
Heck if the beast used up your entire supply of rechargeables you could even buy some disposables in an emergency.
Bah...
;)
:)
I submitted this story on Sunday August 20, at 04:31PM and it got rejected.
So samzenpus posts the same story a full day later and gets accepted.
Boo hiss to the editors (I'm not bitter...
Oh well at least Scuttlemonkey didn't get a blog post about the story submitted
And whilst we're at it what about the utterly shite DVD remote control interface.
What cretin decided that pressing the "play" button would not in fact play the film ? What idiot decided that you have to select play from a menu and press "ok" instead ?
So now the entire worlds mothers, grandparents, the elderly and infirm etc. all sit there in total frustration pressing the play button and nothing happens.
Every other media playback device produced in the last 20 years used the play button to play the content. But no... DVD has to be different.
Which uterrly inept, clueless imbecile thought that up ? And then there's the two brain cell brigade who then went and copied it.
Films are no longer made to express an artists vision of a story. They are made to collect money.
;), then add some useless fluff to it, and spoil the whole thing. Pathetic.
If the preview audience don't tick all the right boxes the film gets cut to ribbons and new "feel good" endings get tagged on whether this ruins the story or not. Either that or something ridiculous gets put in to make things "more exciting" e.g. killer bees in the utterly pointless remake of the Wicker Man.
The film industries are run for money men, by money men. That's why the majority of films produced today are utter crap.
In fact the remake of the Wicker Man sums up the modern film industry for me. Take an excellent film (which had already been butchered by having the original directors cut chopped to bits) remake it for American audiences (i.e. spell everything out in big letters and speak slowly
If the film industry were interested in painting they'd "remake" Picassos "Guernica" by putting it in proper perspective. Thank %INSERT_FAVOURITE_DEITY% they aren't !
Well yet again the primitive file systems of PC operating systems makes me smile.
I've spent large parts of my working life using Fujitsus (ex ICL) Virtual Machine Environment (VME) which features file generations. When you edit a file you don't overwrite the original, you create a new generation when you save the edit.
That way you can always go back to previous generations should you so desire. Need to remove all the old generations ? Simple, call "DELETE_FILE_GENERATIONS" optionally supplying the number of old generations you wish to keep (default none) Obviously any process which accesses a file will always get the highest generation of the file - unless of course a specific generation is required. So for instance opening a file to read it can be performed by the following call:
OPEN_FILE(NAME=SOMEFILE,LNAME=QQ)
Or should you want to open generation 23 of SOMEFILE you'd call:
OPEN_FILE(NAME=SOMEFILE(23),LNAME=QQ)
It's such a beautifully simple idea that I can't understand why it didn't catch on in other operating systems. In comparison having a single copy of each file is utterly primitive and no amount of undelete type facilities make up for the fact it's just a crap design.
File generations should be the way of the future.
I bet you've either never seen, or have forgotten, this story already.
Using fingerprints or other such biometric data to gain access to valuable resources is a very BAD idea. Until there's a sensor that can identify me, that I'm alive and well and not in any way stressed (no gun pressed into the small of my back etc. etc.) then the whole idea is a no no.
When I use Logic I regularly use 20 audio tracks (all with eq), several effects (on individual tracks plus some used as bus effects), several virtual instruments plus anything up to 20 MIDI tracks.
And this is all done on a machine with an Athlon XP2100 processor, 1Gb RAM, a 45 Gb system disk and a 250 Gb data disk. If memory serves me well the largest project I created had something like 30 audio tracks before I start to get glitches. Bouncing tracks is also not an option as I occassionally need to take projects into a "proper" studio where we run it over into a Mac running Pro Tools (it's easiest to do a real time dub of 8 audio tracks at a time as the loss in quality from the analogue bounce is so small as to be practically unnoticable)
And it's not so much that I've had problems, it's just that there's nothing currently on Linux that seems to do the whole integrated MIDI/Audio/Effects as well as Logic.
Sadly it doesn't. I've tried Dyne::bolic, Agnula, etc. and it's not that the tools aren't there, it's just they're not all as well integrated or as "usable" as Logic is.
I have also tried Rosegarden and whilst it's quite good it is more like a cut down Cubase. No disrespect to the devlopers but it's not in the same class as Logic (but given time...)
My best hope currently is that Ardour will get full MIDI support but I haven't got any cash to fund the development so I'll just have to wait (like everyone else)
If I can run Logic Audio, the Audiowerk 8 driver and Sound Forge on top of it then I'm definitely interested.
My primary use for my Windows box is for running Windows audio/MIDI related tools and I'd love to have an open source platform to run them on. Especially if I could strip the OS to the bare minimum that's required to run the hardware & software I want to use (i.e. complete control of which services are running, what's started at boot time etc)
As support for the Windows version of Logic Audio was discontinued I'm even keener to have an open source OS that can run these apps. I'm running Windows 2000 and will not be upgrading to XP/Vista etc. under any circumstances (too many friends/colleagues with too many problems). My current combintaion of Windows 2000 and Logic etc. allows me to get on with making music and I'm happy to stay this way but will have to face the fact that eventually support for Windows 2000 will cease.
And no I'm not going to switch to a MAC. Emagic pulled the rug from under me once (just after I'd paid for an upgrade) so I Learnnt my lesson the hard way. The only way I will ever buy commercial software again is it it comes with the source so can be supported by third parties/myself when thhe manufacturer decides to take their ball home.
Of course I'd love to be able to do what I can currently do on my Windows box using equivalent Linux tools bu sadly there is nothing yet to compare to Logic Logic. (and yes I have tried Rosegarden, Audacity, Ardour etc. etc.)
So I for one hope ReactOS goes from strength to strength.
I got sent this via email several years ago. I only hope it's true as I nearly wet myself the first time I read it:
Customer: "I got this problem. You people sent me this install disk, and now my A: drive won't work."
Tech support: "Your A drive won't work ?"
Customer: "That's what I said. You sent me a bad disk, it got stuck in my drive, now it won't work at all."
Tech support: "Did it not install properly ? What kind of error messages did you get ?"
Customer: "I didn't get any error message. The disk got stuck in the drive and wouldn't come out. So I got these pliers and tried to get it out. That didn't work either."
Tech support: "You did what sir ?"
Customer: "I got these pliers, and tried to get the disk out, but it wouldn't budge. I just ended up cracking the plastic stuff a bit."
Tech support: "I don't understand sir, did you push the eject button ?"
Customer: "No, so then I got a stick of butter and melted it and used a turkey baster and put the butter in the drive, around the disk, and that got it loose. Then I used the pliers and it came out fine. I can't believe you would send me a disk that was broke and defective."
Tech support: "Let me get this clear. You put melted butter in your A: drive and used pliers to pull the disk out ?" At this point, I put the call on the speaker phone and motioned at the other techs to listen in.
Tech support: "Just so I am absolutely clear on this, can you repeat what you just said ?"
Customer: "I said I put butter in my A: drive to get your crappy disk out, then I had to use pliers to pull it out."
Tech support: "Did you push that little button that was sticking out when the disk was in the drive, you know, the thing called the disk eject button ?" Silence.
Tech support: "Sir ?"
Customer: "Yes."
Tech support: "Sir, did you push the eject button ?"
Customer: "No, but you people are going to fix my computer, or I am going to sue you for breaking my computer ?"
Tech support: "Let me get this straight. You are going to sue our company because you put the disk in the A: drive, didn't follow the instructions we sent you, didn't actually seek professional advice, didn't consult your user's manual on how to use your computer properly, instead proceeding to pour butter into the drive and physically rip the disk out ?"
Customer: "Ummmm."
Tech support: "Do you really think you stand a chance, since we do record every call and have it on tape ?"
Customer: (now rather humbled) "But you're supposed to help !"
Tech support: "I am sorry sir, but there is nothing we can do for you. Have a nice day."