Examples: audio playback (ALSA worked but PulseAudio is gaining traction without working terribly stably yet, and not all common apps seem to use it well, either), Flash video (never did get full screen flash to play decently), DVD playback (you have to install those decoding things, and I had to install them twice to get it to work), video drivers (the open source/community ATI drivers didn't do too well, although it's definitely much better than what it was before; still not there, though)...
Windows? Well, I installed it. I had to download and install flash, but after that it was perfectly fine. No problems with audio or DVD playback. Video drivers were installed automatically. Most difficult thing I had to do was download Chrome, Acrobat, and OpenOffice.
Versions I'm comparing are Ubuntu 9.04 and Windows 7. Same hardware (an older Dell E1505 laptop).
Is that a fault of javascript/general asynchronous model or a fault of the particular Slashdot implementation, though?
For instance, various sites with images now do this annoying thing where clicking an image makes a sort of modal window appear in the middle of the page
Agreed, they can be annoying. On the other hand, I've seen some fairly well-done thumbnail scripts where hovering them makes the thumbnail blow up a little bit, but clicking it functions like you would normally think (opens in a new window or tab or whatever you want, just a normal link). Again, this seems to be an implementation specific issue... albeit a big one... heh. One pet peeve of mine are all-flash sites which tend to be very common amongst artists and composers. Flash is pretty handy for playing compositions in the page, but when the entire page is flash, it's sooo slow to use. Implementation is bad; technology/possible functionality isn't necessarily.
Pretty much anything that makes something like AJAX the main focus of the site overdoes it and ends up making it horrible to use.
If the focus is "AJAX Bling, yes. If the focus is functionality, it can be really great. One example I was just using is being able to edit comments on real estate properties inline with the listing of "favorites." Saves having to open each one in a new window, edit comment, click save, etc.
On the other hand, I very much appreciate AJAX trees. It's nice being able to update the a tree of items that might have gotten edited by another user without having to hit refresh and lose the work I was doing. The newer version of TestLink uses an AJAX tree for testcases. First off, the expanding tree version is incredibly nice when you have hundreds or thousands of testcases to sift through. Secondly, the AJAX bit makes the page load way faster when you have the aforementioned Large Number (tm) of testcases.
Vista, blech. xbox and zune hardware I have no experience with. Office 2007 was actually pretty decent, IMO.
Windows 7 is looking to be pretty good so far.
I'm not a fan of Ballmer... but I have a hard time believing the stupidity and idiocy that people attribute to him. From his educational background, he seems to be decently smart/intelligent, too. Especially when so much is taken out of context from the open-source-we-want-to-kill-microsoft people. Just like proprietary-we-want-to-kill-open-source people taken open source developers/leaders/companies out of context in quotes, too...
Yes, 99% of websites "on the Internet" could perform their current functions without javascript. You're right.
The question is: of those websites, how many of them do their current functions better than if they didn't have javascript?
This is not a question of whether or not it "can work" without javascript; it's a question of whether or not the user interface, user experience, functionality, etc., is enhanced through javascript.
The argument that "it was working without javascript!" is a very poor one. Operating systems worked without GUI's. Typewriters worked without "edit" mode(s). Transcribers worked without word processors. For that matter, computers worked without monitors!
The question is, again... is it better (or worse) with javascript/ajax/whatever. If it's better, then why not? If not, then you have a point.
Arguing that it "could" do it without is silly. In my experience, there are some site functions that are vastly improved with something like ajax... for example, being able to upload a file while filling out a form and and not having to wait for the upload to finish before pushing Submit on the form. Or making sure you do the form first and then the upload. Or having to do the upload at hte same time as the form. It can improve efficiency by allowing you to do two things at once. Multitasking on a site without javascript or some scripting thing would be more difficult. Unless, of course, you use frames, or something like that. But 99% of the websites on the Internet could perform their current functions without frames.
Meh. 99% of the websites on the Internet don't need to exist.;)
I guess it probably depends on what you're using it for ("gaming" systems are ridiculously overpriced). Lower-end systems are pretty cheap these days, yeah. I haven't recently checked at expandability either, though. I know it used to be that the lower-end systems were really bad if you wanted to say, add more RAM or a better video card.
When was the last time Microsoft did something the customers wanted, instead of forcing them to "take it or leave it".
I've never been forced to. I upgrade/install on my own. Work/corporate environment is a different story, but at home I choose my OS.
When was the last time any Office application didn't brake file compatibility with previous versions.
Saving or reading? I just save in XP/2000/2007 format. Works fine, including with openoffice, which is what I use anyway.
When was the last time you felt like you actually own a Microsoft software product, and don't have to rent it AND justify yourself every time you need to install it on a new computer?
I've installed and re-installed XP many, many times. I have always felt like I owned it. I've installed Vista (and Windows 7, actually) multiple times with no problem. Yes, I "register" or activate it. No issues with it. Even the phone activation is quite simple. Some of my other software, like Sibelius gives me a much, much, much harder time with activation and whatnot. But it's good software and I like using it, so I deal with it.
Last time some Microsoft protocol didn't break compatibility with competing, or even older own protocols?
Like what?
I don't know, it feels like forever.
When was the last time you USED a Microsoft OS (or Office)?
Read the article. It doesn't sound like he's really being disparaging towards those customers (and he seems to be referring to companies, not individuals)
It looks like most of the article takes small quotes from Ballmer and presumably paraphrases the rest. There aren't a whole lot of quotes form Ballmer himself. And the slashdot summary is even worse. Firstly, he appears to be referring to companies with this quote, not end user customer type peoples (emphasis mine):
But he claimed that the finer details of the licensing system give some companies the opportunity to save money. "Customers always find an approach which pays us less money," he claimed.
Here are some of the *other* quotes from the article that the summary left out.
"Every time you simplify something, you lose something that people used to save money," he added, suggesting that even minor changes to the system could hurt some of its customers.
"The goal is to simplify without a price increase," Ballmer said, adding: "Our shareholders want simplicity without a price decrease."
He added that customers donâ(TM)t want simplicity for the sake of it, claiming that the last time Microsoft tried that route, customer ratings of the firm "plummeted for two years."
Ballmer seems to also be noting that shareholders and customers want two different things: shareholders want Microsoft to charge more and do it more simply, and customers want Microsoft to charge less and do it more simply. Everyone wants it simpler, but simpler+price-decrease and simpler+price-increase are two different things. But don't read what he really said. Just assume he means the worst and let's pretend that one of the largest (the largest?) software companies has a complete idiot in charge and that EVERYONE knows he is an idiot but they keep him there anyway. Or something like that?
Well, I'm glad there's at least one other person on Slashdot that is ok with Jefferson's [albeit Deistic] text.
I asked the question only because it seems most people like to claim rights, but don't like admitting that in order to have a right "given" to them, there has to be someone in authority over them that is "giving" these rights. Otherwise it's not a "right." Nor a privilege, which is also something that is "given"...
What if I don't want health insurance? Why can't that be my business, and not yours?
And what about strange things that people do while on drugs that quite possibly endanger others? Lawyers can already plead "temporary insanity" and get their clients to be treated differently - as though an insane person that likes to kill people is ok and not too dangerous, as opposed to a sane person - I'd hate to see what lawyers do when they start claiming "temporary loss of mental control due to substance contamination" or something.
Sure, maybe it's your body and life and you want to kill yourself using weed... but I don't particularly want to get killed by people, say, on LSD that think they're traveling through a wormhole when in fact they are actually driving a tractor through my house. Or something.
@AnonymousCoward
This is not a text message. This is slashdot. We have an educated readership (and full QERTY or DVORAK keyboards) here, so when you type your message, it is unnecessary to use abbreviations for words, such as "b/c." Please keep Text Message English where it belongs (in text messages).
Slashdot Mirror
You could also use some Gustav Holst. Would probably fool a lot of people. ;)
Yes, you do have to tweak.
Examples: audio playback (ALSA worked but PulseAudio is gaining traction without working terribly stably yet, and not all common apps seem to use it well, either), Flash video (never did get full screen flash to play decently), DVD playback (you have to install those decoding things, and I had to install them twice to get it to work), video drivers (the open source/community ATI drivers didn't do too well, although it's definitely much better than what it was before; still not there, though)...
Windows? Well, I installed it. I had to download and install flash, but after that it was perfectly fine. No problems with audio or DVD playback. Video drivers were installed automatically. Most difficult thing I had to do was download Chrome, Acrobat, and OpenOffice.
Versions I'm comparing are Ubuntu 9.04 and Windows 7. Same hardware (an older Dell E1505 laptop).
Slashdot, for instance?
Is that a fault of javascript/general asynchronous model or a fault of the particular Slashdot implementation, though?
For instance, various sites with images now do this annoying thing where clicking an image makes a sort of modal window appear in the middle of the page
Agreed, they can be annoying. On the other hand, I've seen some fairly well-done thumbnail scripts where hovering them makes the thumbnail blow up a little bit, but clicking it functions like you would normally think (opens in a new window or tab or whatever you want, just a normal link). Again, this seems to be an implementation specific issue... albeit a big one... heh. One pet peeve of mine are all-flash sites which tend to be very common amongst artists and composers. Flash is pretty handy for playing compositions in the page, but when the entire page is flash, it's sooo slow to use. Implementation is bad; technology/possible functionality isn't necessarily.
Pretty much anything that makes something like AJAX the main focus of the site overdoes it and ends up making it horrible to use.
If the focus is "AJAX Bling, yes. If the focus is functionality, it can be really great. One example I was just using is being able to edit comments on real estate properties inline with the listing of "favorites." Saves having to open each one in a new window, edit comment, click save, etc.
On the other hand, I very much appreciate AJAX trees. It's nice being able to update the a tree of items that might have gotten edited by another user without having to hit refresh and lose the work I was doing. The newer version of TestLink uses an AJAX tree for testcases. First off, the expanding tree version is incredibly nice when you have hundreds or thousands of testcases to sift through. Secondly, the AJAX bit makes the page load way faster when you have the aforementioned Large Number (tm) of testcases.
Vista, blech. xbox and zune hardware I have no experience with. Office 2007 was actually pretty decent, IMO.
Windows 7 is looking to be pretty good so far.
I'm not a fan of Ballmer... but I have a hard time believing the stupidity and idiocy that people attribute to him. From his educational background, he seems to be decently smart/intelligent, too. Especially when so much is taken out of context from the open-source-we-want-to-kill-microsoft people. Just like proprietary-we-want-to-kill-open-source people taken open source developers/leaders/companies out of context in quotes, too...
And tell me what I want for lunch today please!
Oh, that's too easy. McDonald's, Mr. mcbutterbuns. ;)
Yes, 99% of websites "on the Internet" could perform their current functions without javascript. You're right.
The question is: of those websites, how many of them do their current functions better than if they didn't have javascript?
This is not a question of whether or not it "can work" without javascript; it's a question of whether or not the user interface, user experience, functionality, etc., is enhanced through javascript.
The argument that "it was working without javascript!" is a very poor one. Operating systems worked without GUI's. Typewriters worked without "edit" mode(s). Transcribers worked without word processors. For that matter, computers worked without monitors!
The question is, again ... is it better (or worse) with javascript/ajax/whatever. If it's better, then why not? If not, then you have a point.
Arguing that it "could" do it without is silly. In my experience, there are some site functions that are vastly improved with something like ajax... for example, being able to upload a file while filling out a form and and not having to wait for the upload to finish before pushing Submit on the form. Or making sure you do the form first and then the upload. Or having to do the upload at hte same time as the form. It can improve efficiency by allowing you to do two things at once. Multitasking on a site without javascript or some scripting thing would be more difficult. Unless, of course, you use frames, or something like that. But 99% of the websites on the Internet could perform their current functions without frames.
Meh. 99% of the websites on the Internet don't need to exist. ;)
I guess it probably depends on what you're using it for ("gaming" systems are ridiculously overpriced). Lower-end systems are pretty cheap these days, yeah. I haven't recently checked at expandability either, though. I know it used to be that the lower-end systems were really bad if you wanted to say, add more RAM or a better video card.
A computer is almost synonymous with "laptop" or "netbook" these days.
Hm. That's news to me. Oh well.
When was the last time Microsoft did something the customers wanted, instead of forcing them to "take it or leave it".
I've never been forced to. I upgrade/install on my own. Work/corporate environment is a different story, but at home I choose my OS.
When was the last time any Office application didn't brake file compatibility with previous versions.
Saving or reading? I just save in XP/2000/2007 format. Works fine, including with openoffice, which is what I use anyway.
When was the last time you felt like you actually own a Microsoft software product, and don't have to rent it AND justify yourself every time you need to install it on a new computer?
I've installed and re-installed XP many, many times. I have always felt like I owned it. I've installed Vista (and Windows 7, actually) multiple times with no problem. Yes, I "register" or activate it. No issues with it. Even the phone activation is quite simple. Some of my other software, like Sibelius gives me a much, much, much harder time with activation and whatnot. But it's good software and I like using it, so I deal with it.
Last time some Microsoft protocol didn't break compatibility with competing, or even older own protocols?
Like what?
I don't know, it feels like forever.
When was the last time you USED a Microsoft OS (or Office)?
Have you ever tried to buy a computer without windows on it?
Uh-huh. They're called "parts." :)
Read the article. It doesn't sound like he's really being disparaging towards those customers (and he seems to be referring to companies, not individuals)
It looks like most of the article takes small quotes from Ballmer and presumably paraphrases the rest. There aren't a whole lot of quotes form Ballmer himself. And the slashdot summary is even worse. Firstly, he appears to be referring to companies with this quote, not end user customer type peoples (emphasis mine):
But he claimed that the finer details of the licensing system give some companies the opportunity to save money. "Customers always find an approach which pays us less money," he claimed.
Here are some of the *other* quotes from the article that the summary left out.
"Every time you simplify something, you lose something that people used to save money," he added, suggesting that even minor changes to the system could hurt some of its customers.
"The goal is to simplify without a price increase," Ballmer said, adding: "Our shareholders want simplicity without a price decrease."
He added that customers donâ(TM)t want simplicity for the sake of it, claiming that the last time Microsoft tried that route, customer ratings of the firm "plummeted for two years."
Ballmer seems to also be noting that shareholders and customers want two different things: shareholders want Microsoft to charge more and do it more simply, and customers want Microsoft to charge less and do it more simply. Everyone wants it simpler, but simpler+price-decrease and simpler+price-increase are two different things. But don't read what he really said. Just assume he means the worst and let's pretend that one of the largest (the largest?) software companies has a complete idiot in charge and that EVERYONE knows he is an idiot but they keep him there anyway. Or something like that?
Well, I'm glad there's at least one other person on Slashdot that is ok with Jefferson's [albeit Deistic] text.
I asked the question only because it seems most people like to claim rights, but don't like admitting that in order to have a right "given" to them, there has to be someone in authority over them that is "giving" these rights. Otherwise it's not a "right." Nor a privilege, which is also something that is "given" ...
I didn't look at it too closely, I just voted against it. ;)
Doh. :)
Brilliant logical arguments. Very "insightful." ...
... it was supposed to cost $10 billion ...
The "you have new email" icon looks more like you have a new burrito waiting.
Dude, if I had a burrito for every new mail I got, I'd be happy...
Or your usage of verbs... ;)
What if I don't want health insurance? Why can't that be my business, and not yours?
And what about strange things that people do while on drugs that quite possibly endanger others? Lawyers can already plead "temporary insanity" and get their clients to be treated differently - as though an insane person that likes to kill people is ok and not too dangerous, as opposed to a sane person - I'd hate to see what lawyers do when they start claiming "temporary loss of mental control due to substance contamination" or something.
Sure, maybe it's your body and life and you want to kill yourself using weed... but I don't particularly want to get killed by people, say, on LSD that think they're traveling through a wormhole when in fact they are actually driving a tractor through my house. Or something.
... the installation of viruses and worms on computers you don't pwn is now illegal.
Much better.
@AnonymousCoward This is not a text message. This is slashdot. We have an educated readership (and full QERTY or DVORAK keyboards) here, so when you type your message, it is unnecessary to use abbreviations for words, such as "b/c." Please keep Text Message English where it belongs (in text messages).
an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature;
... who gives this "unalienable" right to privacy? (or, for that matter, any of our rights...)
I'll run. Vote for me. ;)
Erm. Define "good enough."