That's because I'm not arguing that you shouldn't. Is English your first language (honest question)?
So, then what exactly are you arguing about?
And yeah, English is my first language. Is it yours? I ask because...
Enough to do what? Build a website that will be usable by most people? It certainly isn't. Are you saying that you think that, as long as a document is valid, a surfer will have little difficulty in reading it?
Enough to have a web site that works. If it "certianly isn't", then why does my HTML seem to work just fine between IE and Mozilla? No difficulties at all for the surfers.
I never said that either.
You didn't explicity say that, sure, but that's what you're implying, because everything I've said so far is in defense of using the spec and not putting in "fixes", and we're disagreeing somewhere.
Okay. Let's say you were building a website. Are you saying that there is an HTML document type out there that mainstream browsers can handle without fault? Please provide exact names and versions of both the document type and the browsers that can supposedly handle it.
Sure. HTML 4.0 Strict. Everything I've written that complied with that standard seems to work just fine and dandy under IE 5/6, and versions of Mozilla from 1.0 on up.
No, it's not complicated stuff, but it does render properly, and does adhere to HTML 4.0 Strict.
So your initial point that you can display a warning to incompatible browsers wasn't wholly true then, was it? Modification of the browser is not necessary either.
It's entirely true, it just may be ineffective with a small group of people who have their browsers report a different version than what's actually being run. It might be more work than it's worth, basically.. Kinda like putting in fixes to already properly written web pages.
No, it's the company's decision to use XHTML 1.1. As a responsible web developer, it's his responsibility to make sure that they are aware of the consequences. If they are aware, and still choose to go with XHTML 1.1, then it's their fault their website doesn't work in Internet Explorer. There are published specifications they can adhere to that work across many browsers including Internet Explorer, and they decided to go with a different format that doesn't work in Internet Explorer. That's their informed choice.
So, it's the company's fault for Microsoft's inability to render XHTML 1.1? And you think I have issues with comprehension and the English language...
We're talking about code and browsers here, and regardless of who's writing code for who, as long as that code meets spec, the burden falls on the browser to render the site properly.
Why would people deliberately shut out the majority of their visitors?
To make a point? It's their choice, it's their site. If you can't render it because your browser is out of date, who's fault is it?
What part of my plain English sentences do you not get? I'm not saying people should write invalid code! I'm saying that if you want any reasonable expectation of constructing a website that works to an acceptable level, you need to test in a range of browsers.
Fine, don't have to write "invalid" code. Then why do you have to write more to make it work?
And just so I've said it somewhere in this crazy ass thread, I do NOT believe web designers should have to write code to support out of date browsers. People need to keep software current, if not for compatibility, for security.
At no point have I advocated writing code that is incompatible with the specifications. Please point out where you think I did.
So, why are you putting in "fixes" if the browsers are in spec?
In other words, you can stick your head in the sand. Ignoring browser bugs doesn't make the bugs go away, it makes your visitors go away. What's the point of building a website if you don't care whether people can use it or not?
I'm very much not ignoring those bugs. I encourage everyone to report them to whoever makes their browser.
I've not had any issues with the web sites I've designed in the past. Visitors did not go away. No one complained about pages rendering improperly, etc.
"A good job" isn't good enough. It only takes a single bug to render a page unreadable.
I guess I've never written code that found that one bug that would trash my site.
Show me a browser that can render HTML 4.0 documents properly. I don't mean implements 95% of the specification, I mean 100%. You're so keen to point out that you should be able to just author to the spec and be done with it, but you have yet to name a browser that actually lives up to your ideals. No version of Internet Explorer or Mozilla has implemented the HTML 4 specification 100% correctly. It's no good authoring to spec and hoping that you didn't hit the 5% that a browser screws up.
That's funny... Then why does IE and Mozilla render whatever I've written in HTML 4.0 Strict properly? Granted, it's not overly complicated stuff, but they look the same, and work just fine.
But, whatever. If you feel the need to write six different versions of the same code so you can be "compatible", that's your choice. I'll stick to what I know, and what's worked for me and the people who've visited my sites in the past.
Straw-man. You seem to be interpreting "coding to spec isn't enough" as "coding to spec is wrong". You either don't have very good English comprehension skills, or you deliberately mischaracterise our points because you can't argue against our real points.
You have yet to make a valid argument for not adhering to published specs for web content.
Coding to spec IS enough.
I certainly wouldn't hire a designer that didn't make sure the website was usable by its target audience.
Great. That's your decision, and has nothing to do with the fact that coding to spec should be enough with regards to publishing web content.
Wrong. In almost all cases, the user can simply go to another website to get what they want. It is, however, the website owner's problem, as they are losing visitors. No doubt this is why jswhiting asked if your clients knew about your attitude.
Because coding to spec instantly makes that site completely unuseable? I didn't realize that not a single web browser out there could render ANY W3C standard properly.
My clients did know about my attitude. And no one complained, or received any complaints, about their sites.
In fact, most clients were happy with my code when I turned it over to them, because it was easy to maintain, and read.
There are unreliable ways of detecting the browser type. If you've found a way that is reliable, then by all means, enlighten me.
Hey, if people are going to modify their browsers to lie about the build/software revision, there isn't anything I can do about that. In fact, there's nothing you can do about it either.
You must be one of those web developers looking for work... I can't think of anyone who'd WANT to have to code the same page six different ways.
It's Microsoft's fault that XHTML 1.1 will not work in Internet Explorer. It's your fault if somebody hires you to build a website and it doesn't work in a web browser that is used by the vast majority of surfers.
Is it still his fault if a company hires him to write a new web site in XHTML 1.1, and it doesn't work on IE? No, it's Microsoft's fault. Same goes for Mozilla, etc... Browsers need to render published spec properly, period.
Why are Microsoft expected to implement XHTML 1.1 anyway? It brings virtually no advantages to their users.
They don't have too, no one's forcing them. Of course, no one will use their product if people start using XHTML 1.1 for all of their sites.
Gotta stay current with published specs if you want to play with the new toys on the 'net.
Stop right there. At no point did I advocate writing invalid code. But the point you seem to be arguing is that, as a web developer, once the code is valid, your job is done. That's complete rubbish, unless you don't mind your websites being inaccessible to everybody. Valid code is just a single step, it's not the finishing line.
So, in order to make the web sites accessible to everyone, he has to write invalid code, or just simply a lot more of it to cater to incompatible browsers.
I've never said otherwise. In fact, that's exactly why I said "Browsers have bugs. You can deal with that by testing..."
So, by testing your code, and then writing in fixes for browsers that are incompatible with HTML spec, that somehow fixes the larger problem of incompatible browsers?
"...or you can stick your head in the sand."
Or I can write compliant code, and the people who write browsers can fix their broken software.
Exactly which browsers do you think render HTML 4.0 properly?
IE and Mozilla do a good job, if the pages aren't overly complicated.
have you told your clients that this is your position? or maybe you don't have clients and aren't in any way responsible or accountable for the design work you do? i wouldn'hire a web designer who thinks that way.
I used to design sites when I ran a small ISP, and later when I worked for a scientific research company out west.
Every site I designed displayed the W3C validated image for whatever version of HTML I was using at the time.
You wouldn't hire a designer who adhere's to standards? If that's the case, you have no one but yourself to blame when things take too long to code, or don't work properly in the end. No skin off my back, I wouldn't do work for you if that's the attitude you have.
if some people can't see the site or are seeing it render improperly, then not only has valuable interest in the site been wasted, but those people will then carry negative impressions which will, by word of mouth etc, spread.
That's not my problem. If the site is validated for HTML X.XX, and their browser doesn't handle it, it's their problem. Stay current, file a bug report, replace the browser, etc.
Also, there ARE ways of detecting what browser type is being used to view a site, and displaying a warning that the browser is incompatible, if the designer chooses to do so.
if you aren't worried about a rotting userbase, then you can think that way, but most people care if someone wants to see their site but can't. making a site that everyone can see and use properly is overkill, but if you're not even catering to IE6 then either you are trying to target a niche market (okay), or you just don't have your priorities straight, or you just don't have any responsibilities at all.
Funny, but for the most part, everything I've coded in the past tended to work very well, and I mainly used HTML 4.0 Strict. Sites were designed to be ADA compliant, and if it was too difficult to do with the normal site layout, I made a seperate, text only ADA site (which was accessed by being the very first link displayed on the page, upper left-hand corner of the browser window).
My priorities are perfectly fine. I've never had a complaint about any of my sites, and the code was very tight. Easy to read, easy to maintain, and 100% compliant, according to the W3C validators.
The best part was, I didn't waste hours of time designing a site around browser flaws.
>The whole point of testing in browsers is to ensure that things work properly.
The whole point of standards is that you don't have to. They will, all by themselves, if the browsers are standards-compliant.
The point of standards is to aid interoperability. They aren't a get-out clause to expect everybody else to write bug-free code. That is an unreasonable expectation, especially as validators themselves are only a tool to catch errors you've made yourself. So you make errors but nobody else is allowed to, is that it?
If I validate xhtml 1.1, that's the end of my testing phase.
You are aware that XHTML 1.1, per standards, will not work in Internet Explorer?
>How do you ensure that the HTML, CSS, etc you have chosen works with popular browsers?
By using standard-compliant xhtml and css. In and of itself, this guarantees that this will work in particular browsers.
Which particular browsers? There is no browser that gets XHTML or CSS completely right. It's quite obvious to anybody who has spent more than five minutes developing websites that standard-compliant XHTML and CSS does not guarantee your website will work in any particular browser. Browsers have bugs. You can deal with that by testing, or you can stick your head in the sand.
Note that I semantize, and don't go for special effects. (None. Go to my site, you'll see. It navigates and looks the same in Konq, Safari, Moz, Op, Lynx and Links.)
Your website violates RFC 2616 (HTTP 1.1) and RFC 2854 (the text/html media type), as XHTML 1.1 is not permissable to send as text/html. Also, by including an XML PI, you are screwing up rendering on Pocket IE and one other user-agent that I can't quite recall. If you want to comply with the specifications and also be accessible to the majority of the web, you'll have to drop back to XHTML 1.0 and follow Appendix C.
Or you could take your own advice, use the application/xhtml+xml media type, and say goodbye to Internet Explorer users, Lynx users, Links users and most search engines. After all, you just have to write to standards, and your job is done, right?
He's right. There are standards in place for everyone to use. If I write code that is 100% compliant with standard "A", and a certian web browser can't render that page, there is a problem with the browser, not my code.
I don't care what browser anyone uses to look at my web pages. My code adheres to published standards, and it is not my problem if a web browser is out of date, or non-compliant.
You have a browser that is supposed to be HTML 4.0 compatible, but can't render my site? Go file a bug with the company/person who wrote the browser, or go and get a browser that CAN render HTML 4.0 properly.
Writing code to handle ten different browsers is a waste of time. Why can't the browsers just fucking WORK like they're supposed to, and render code properly?
Unless you have the speed/storage requirements, you don't have to buy the latest and greatest tape technology.
I'm currently backing up over 250GB per week (one full, four differentials throughout the week) to a DDS-4 tape changer. Yes, it's slow as hell, but it works, and no one wants to spend any more money on it.
For $2500 or so you could get a nice VXA changer from CDW. Tapes aren't too horribly expensive either. DLT changers are around the same price, and can also be purchased used/refurbed for less.
I wish we'd just go DLT, save some money, and have faster backups that used less tapes. Doesn't have to be the greatest, just has to work (especially when you need it for restores!).
Experience is everything these days, take it from me. I dropped out of college to work for the university full-time. Planned on going back (once I was full-time, classes were going to cost practically nothing), but was offered a position that more than doubled my already decent salary.
By the time I left the university for greener pastures, I had six years experience in IT roles. Started doing IT work for a small company one month after I had my driver's license back in high school.
I do wish I had finished some form of degree while I was in school, but I don't worry too much about it these days.
If you're in school now, get at least a part-time job doing something related to your degree. Build experience, make contacts in the industry. You need to know people who know people by the time you graduate, and have some experience under that belt. A degree is just icing on the cake.
Until my AMD 386DX-40 system (w/32 Megs RAM) died, I was running Slackware 8.1 with X, KDE, BIND, sendmail, FTP, HTTP, SSH and other network services. Used it as a firewall/masq/router/web server on DSL for many years (started out with Slackware 3, kept upgrading as new releases came out).
If one of the "big" distros doesn't cut it on your hardware, give Slackware a try.
All of my desktops at work are Slackware 9.1, while my coworkers run some form of Fedora. All of my hardware works fantastic, they constantly have problems with CD players/burners, video, apps, you name it.
At home I have an old Compaq 486 system with a Pentium 83 chip, 52Megs of RAM, and it's my dial-up/firewall/NAT/router/DNS server for the rest of my machines. I also have plenty of other tired hardware that runs great on Slackware, as well as somewhat modern hardware.
Slackware keeps it simple, which results in an OS that's a pleasure to administer as well as use every day.
I have an Intel Pentium 233MMX system w/192Megs of RAM at home running Windows 2000 Pro, and it's just fine and dandy. The only Linux distro I'd think about installing on that same machine would be Slackware, and even then it'd be stripped down to Fluxbox for the WM (but I do that with all of my Linux desktop machines).
Fact is, some Linux distros are getting very top-heavy when it comes to the window managers and graphical apps. No way would I subject any of my machines to Fedora, Mandrake, or SuSE. Too much poorly written fluff to slow down the system.
Linux isn't even close to being acceptable for day-to-day use on the desktop for the masses, and unless some serious changes (optimizing code, trimming code, improving desktop apps and window managers) gets better, it'll never get there.
You use anti-gel additives, which don't cost a whole lot, and usually add more lubricants to the fuel, so it helps keep the fuel system working properly too.
Not expensive, and in the winter months can be found anywhere you buy diesel here in the midwest (USA).
I never had starting problems with my '84 K5 Blazer (6.2L diesel), even when I lived in Colorado (got nice and cold there). Just keep decent batteries in your vehicle, plug it in when you can, and make sure you have enough anti-gel in the system.
I think it works out around a gallon of diesel fuel for an hour of idling, and that depends on what speed you set your idle.
That's not too bad, really.
A lot of areas are trying to prevent trucks from idling at rest stops to cut back on smog, etc. These places are starting to offer electrical hook-ups (ala RV style) so truckers can shut down their engines, but still have A/C or heat, and power their mini-fridges, computers, TVs, etc while they're resting.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because I'm not arguing that you shouldn't. Is English your first language (honest question)?
So, then what exactly are you arguing about?
And yeah, English is my first language. Is it yours? I ask because...
Enough to do what? Build a website that will be usable by most people? It certainly isn't. Are you saying that you think that, as long as a document is valid, a surfer will have little difficulty in reading it?
Enough to have a web site that works. If it "certianly isn't", then why does my HTML seem to work just fine between IE and Mozilla? No difficulties at all for the surfers.
I never said that either.
You didn't explicity say that, sure, but that's what you're implying, because everything I've said so far is in defense of using the spec and not putting in "fixes", and we're disagreeing somewhere.
Okay. Let's say you were building a website. Are you saying that there is an HTML document type out there that mainstream browsers can handle without fault? Please provide exact names and versions of both the document type and the browsers that can supposedly handle it.
Sure. HTML 4.0 Strict. Everything I've written that complied with that standard seems to work just fine and dandy under IE 5/6, and versions of Mozilla from 1.0 on up.
No, it's not complicated stuff, but it does render properly, and does adhere to HTML 4.0 Strict.
So your initial point that you can display a warning to incompatible browsers wasn't wholly true then, was it? Modification of the browser is not necessary either.
It's entirely true, it just may be ineffective with a small group of people who have their browsers report a different version than what's actually being run. It might be more work than it's worth, basically.. Kinda like putting in fixes to already properly written web pages.
Yeah... TV is definately taking up less and less of my time these days. Maybe half an hour a day on average.
Reality shows really need to go.
No, it's the company's decision to use XHTML 1.1. As a responsible web developer, it's his responsibility to make sure that they are aware of the consequences. If they are aware, and still choose to go with XHTML 1.1, then it's their fault their website doesn't work in Internet Explorer. There are published specifications they can adhere to that work across many browsers including Internet Explorer, and they decided to go with a different format that doesn't work in Internet Explorer. That's their informed choice.
So, it's the company's fault for Microsoft's inability to render XHTML 1.1? And you think I have issues with comprehension and the English language...
We're talking about code and browsers here, and regardless of who's writing code for who, as long as that code meets spec, the burden falls on the browser to render the site properly.
Why would people deliberately shut out the majority of their visitors?
To make a point? It's their choice, it's their site. If you can't render it because your browser is out of date, who's fault is it?
What part of my plain English sentences do you not get? I'm not saying people should write invalid code! I'm saying that if you want any reasonable expectation of constructing a website that works to an acceptable level, you need to test in a range of browsers.
Fine, don't have to write "invalid" code. Then why do you have to write more to make it work?
And just so I've said it somewhere in this crazy ass thread, I do NOT believe web designers should have to write code to support out of date browsers. People need to keep software current, if not for compatibility, for security.
At no point have I advocated writing code that is incompatible with the specifications. Please point out where you think I did.
So, why are you putting in "fixes" if the browsers are in spec?
In other words, you can stick your head in the sand. Ignoring browser bugs doesn't make the bugs go away, it makes your visitors go away. What's the point of building a website if you don't care whether people can use it or not?
I'm very much not ignoring those bugs. I encourage everyone to report them to whoever makes their browser.
I've not had any issues with the web sites I've designed in the past. Visitors did not go away. No one complained about pages rendering improperly, etc.
"A good job" isn't good enough. It only takes a single bug to render a page unreadable.
I guess I've never written code that found that one bug that would trash my site.
Show me a browser that can render HTML 4.0 documents properly. I don't mean implements 95% of the specification, I mean 100%. You're so keen to point out that you should be able to just author to the spec and be done with it, but you have yet to name a browser that actually lives up to your ideals. No version of Internet Explorer or Mozilla has implemented the HTML 4 specification 100% correctly. It's no good authoring to spec and hoping that you didn't hit the 5% that a browser screws up.
That's funny... Then why does IE and Mozilla render whatever I've written in HTML 4.0 Strict properly? Granted, it's not overly complicated stuff, but they look the same, and work just fine.
But, whatever. If you feel the need to write six different versions of the same code so you can be "compatible", that's your choice. I'll stick to what I know, and what's worked for me and the people who've visited my sites in the past.
Straw-man. You seem to be interpreting "coding to spec isn't enough" as "coding to spec is wrong". You either don't have very good English comprehension skills, or you deliberately mischaracterise our points because you can't argue against our real points.
You have yet to make a valid argument for not adhering to published specs for web content.
Coding to spec IS enough.
I certainly wouldn't hire a designer that didn't make sure the website was usable by its target audience.
Great. That's your decision, and has nothing to do with the fact that coding to spec should be enough with regards to publishing web content.
Wrong. In almost all cases, the user can simply go to another website to get what they want. It is, however, the website owner's problem, as they are losing visitors. No doubt this is why jswhiting asked if your clients knew about your attitude.
Because coding to spec instantly makes that site completely unuseable? I didn't realize that not a single web browser out there could render ANY W3C standard properly.
My clients did know about my attitude. And no one complained, or received any complaints, about their sites.
In fact, most clients were happy with my code when I turned it over to them, because it was easy to maintain, and read.
There are unreliable ways of detecting the browser type. If you've found a way that is reliable, then by all means, enlighten me.
Hey, if people are going to modify their browsers to lie about the build/software revision, there isn't anything I can do about that. In fact, there's nothing you can do about it either.
You must be one of those web developers looking for work... I can't think of anyone who'd WANT to have to code the same page six different ways.
You write your code to W3C specs, and let the browser coders worry about meeting those specs.
It's Microsoft's fault that XHTML 1.1 will not work in Internet Explorer. It's your fault if somebody hires you to build a website and it doesn't work in a web browser that is used by the vast majority of surfers.
Is it still his fault if a company hires him to write a new web site in XHTML 1.1, and it doesn't work on IE? No, it's Microsoft's fault. Same goes for Mozilla, etc... Browsers need to render published spec properly, period.
Why are Microsoft expected to implement XHTML 1.1 anyway? It brings virtually no advantages to their users.
They don't have too, no one's forcing them. Of course, no one will use their product if people start using XHTML 1.1 for all of their sites.
Gotta stay current with published specs if you want to play with the new toys on the 'net.
Stop right there. At no point did I advocate writing invalid code. But the point you seem to be arguing is that, as a web developer, once the code is valid, your job is done. That's complete rubbish, unless you don't mind your websites being inaccessible to everybody. Valid code is just a single step, it's not the finishing line.
So, in order to make the web sites accessible to everyone, he has to write invalid code, or just simply a lot more of it to cater to incompatible browsers.
Valid code should be the ONLY step.
I've never said otherwise. In fact, that's exactly why I said "Browsers have bugs. You can deal with that by testing..."
So, by testing your code, and then writing in fixes for browsers that are incompatible with HTML spec, that somehow fixes the larger problem of incompatible browsers?
"...or you can stick your head in the sand."
Or I can write compliant code, and the people who write browsers can fix their broken software.
Exactly which browsers do you think render HTML 4.0 properly?
IE and Mozilla do a good job, if the pages aren't overly complicated.
have you told your clients that this is your position? or maybe you don't have clients and aren't in any way responsible or accountable for the design work you do? i wouldn'hire a web designer who thinks that way.
I used to design sites when I ran a small ISP, and later when I worked for a scientific research company out west.
Every site I designed displayed the W3C validated image for whatever version of HTML I was using at the time.
You wouldn't hire a designer who adhere's to standards? If that's the case, you have no one but yourself to blame when things take too long to code, or don't work properly in the end. No skin off my back, I wouldn't do work for you if that's the attitude you have.
if some people can't see the site or are seeing it render improperly, then not only has valuable interest in the site been wasted, but those people will then carry negative impressions which will, by word of mouth etc, spread.
That's not my problem. If the site is validated for HTML X.XX, and their browser doesn't handle it, it's their problem. Stay current, file a bug report, replace the browser, etc.
Also, there ARE ways of detecting what browser type is being used to view a site, and displaying a warning that the browser is incompatible, if the designer chooses to do so.
if you aren't worried about a rotting userbase, then you can think that way, but most people care if someone wants to see their site but can't. making a site that everyone can see and use properly is overkill, but if you're not even catering to IE6 then either you are trying to target a niche market (okay), or you just don't have your priorities straight, or you just don't have any responsibilities at all.
Funny, but for the most part, everything I've coded in the past tended to work very well, and I mainly used HTML 4.0 Strict. Sites were designed to be ADA compliant, and if it was too difficult to do with the normal site layout, I made a seperate, text only ADA site (which was accessed by being the very first link displayed on the page, upper left-hand corner of the browser window).
My priorities are perfectly fine. I've never had a complaint about any of my sites, and the code was very tight. Easy to read, easy to maintain, and 100% compliant, according to the W3C validators.
The best part was, I didn't waste hours of time designing a site around browser flaws.
He's right. There are standards in place for everyone to use. If I write code that is 100% compliant with standard "A", and a certian web browser can't render that page, there is a problem with the browser, not my code.
I don't care what browser anyone uses to look at my web pages. My code adheres to published standards, and it is not my problem if a web browser is out of date, or non-compliant.
You have a browser that is supposed to be HTML 4.0 compatible, but can't render my site? Go file a bug with the company/person who wrote the browser, or go and get a browser that CAN render HTML 4.0 properly.
Writing code to handle ten different browsers is a waste of time. Why can't the browsers just fucking WORK like they're supposed to, and render code properly?
Sounds like I wasn't the only one watching TV this weekend...
My '88 Civic LX with a 1.5L engine will do 105mph just fine.
Unless you have the speed/storage requirements, you don't have to buy the latest and greatest tape technology.
I'm currently backing up over 250GB per week (one full, four differentials throughout the week) to a DDS-4 tape changer. Yes, it's slow as hell, but it works, and no one wants to spend any more money on it.
For $2500 or so you could get a nice VXA changer from CDW. Tapes aren't too horribly expensive either. DLT changers are around the same price, and can also be purchased used/refurbed for less.
I wish we'd just go DLT, save some money, and have faster backups that used less tapes. Doesn't have to be the greatest, just has to work (especially when you need it for restores!).
Experience is everything these days, take it from me. I dropped out of college to work for the university full-time. Planned on going back (once I was full-time, classes were going to cost practically nothing), but was offered a position that more than doubled my already decent salary.
By the time I left the university for greener pastures, I had six years experience in IT roles. Started doing IT work for a small company one month after I had my driver's license back in high school.
I do wish I had finished some form of degree while I was in school, but I don't worry too much about it these days.
If you're in school now, get at least a part-time job doing something related to your degree. Build experience, make contacts in the industry. You need to know people who know people by the time you graduate, and have some experience under that belt. A degree is just icing on the cake.
I think Burt's making a run for either the moon, or Mars.
I wonder what the "Independant Federation of Planets of Burt" will look like?
It has the capability to carry three people, but only one (the pilot) is going on this flight.
You have to have three people IN the thing to qualify for the X-Prize.
I run Slackware on a Pentium 83 w/52Megs of RAM.
Until my AMD 386DX-40 system (w/32 Megs RAM) died, I was running Slackware 8.1 with X, KDE, BIND, sendmail, FTP, HTTP, SSH and other network services. Used it as a firewall/masq/router/web server on DSL for many years (started out with Slackware 3, kept upgrading as new releases came out).
If one of the "big" distros doesn't cut it on your hardware, give Slackware a try.
Slackware is good stuff.
All of my desktops at work are Slackware 9.1, while my coworkers run some form of Fedora. All of my hardware works fantastic, they constantly have problems with CD players/burners, video, apps, you name it.
At home I have an old Compaq 486 system with a Pentium 83 chip, 52Megs of RAM, and it's my dial-up/firewall/NAT/router/DNS server for the rest of my machines. I also have plenty of other tired hardware that runs great on Slackware, as well as somewhat modern hardware.
Slackware keeps it simple, which results in an OS that's a pleasure to administer as well as use every day.
Err... No.
I have an Intel Pentium 233MMX system w/192Megs of RAM at home running Windows 2000 Pro, and it's just fine and dandy. The only Linux distro I'd think about installing on that same machine would be Slackware, and even then it'd be stripped down to Fluxbox for the WM (but I do that with all of my Linux desktop machines).
Fact is, some Linux distros are getting very top-heavy when it comes to the window managers and graphical apps. No way would I subject any of my machines to Fedora, Mandrake, or SuSE. Too much poorly written fluff to slow down the system.
Linux isn't even close to being acceptable for day-to-day use on the desktop for the masses, and unless some serious changes (optimizing code, trimming code, improving desktop apps and window managers) gets better, it'll never get there.
Get everyone to power off their routers/servers for 72 hours. See if that gets noticed.
You use anti-gel additives, which don't cost a whole lot, and usually add more lubricants to the fuel, so it helps keep the fuel system working properly too.
Not expensive, and in the winter months can be found anywhere you buy diesel here in the midwest (USA).
I never had starting problems with my '84 K5 Blazer (6.2L diesel), even when I lived in Colorado (got nice and cold there). Just keep decent batteries in your vehicle, plug it in when you can, and make sure you have enough anti-gel in the system.
I think it works out around a gallon of diesel fuel for an hour of idling, and that depends on what speed you set your idle.
That's not too bad, really.
A lot of areas are trying to prevent trucks from idling at rest stops to cut back on smog, etc. These places are starting to offer electrical hook-ups (ala RV style) so truckers can shut down their engines, but still have A/C or heat, and power their mini-fridges, computers, TVs, etc while they're resting.
This was in Slackware-current, the development branch of Slackware.
Slackware 9.1 (the last official release of Slackware) uses XFree86 4.3.0.
The next release of slackware will be using X.org's X server.
Slackware... The official Linux distro of the Klingon Empire!
I run X with fluxbox on my laptop, but the rest of my machines at home don't even have monitors or keyboards. ;-)
At any rate, can't be surprised with this decision. Power to the people, down with crappy licenses.