* phpbb or some other fully-functional, fantastic open source forum software that allows people to post and respond like a typical forum. * Wordpress integration (you can already integrate Wordpress into phpbb) or some approximation there of, so you can post articles/stories on a front portal, written by the staff of a site. Articles would have a link to a forum thread to discuss the article. * Gallery integration (again already possible) for photos.
The problem is that no one packages this together neatly with a nice consistent theme, great integration, and the right blend of plugins to keep spam-bots off your site.
Now throw Wave into the mix.
A Wave requires that you invite people into the way to see it, or edit it. However a Wave robot tied into a good forum/CMS platform really interests me. Authors on a website can invite a robot into a Wave, which posts the results into their Wordpress/phpbb hybrid. The website staff/authors can instantly and easily edit/collaborate the article itself. The article isn't posted on the site until you invite the Robot, which allows you to work on drafts, or have a workflow process of an editor to sign off on the article.
The CMS/forum is there for end users to read the finished article, and respond with the permissions the CMS/forum gives them. But Wave provides a better means for authors to put content on the site to begin with.
phpbb/Wordpress/Gallery2/Wave would be a fantastic framework for a community portal. I wish I were a php-guru to put it together.
Take email, instant messaging, wiki functionality, and roll it into one, but only better.
Even better, this is an open protocol with code already released that would let you host your own Wave server.
It used to be back in the caveman era that email wasn't a standard protocol, so seperate email systems couldn't talk with each other. I've been wanting one open protocol for IM for ages, so that anyone on any network can talk easily. But again, this is just so much better.
The video is really long, but I found the demo to be worth the time it took to watch. I'm somewhat shocked someone didn't just cut it up into a 5-10 min video on YouTube though.
I don't do that, so I don't get any benefits from Chrome.
Except Chrome's UI is more than just saving vertical space there. There are still tons of benefits, such as having the only auto-complete that doesn't suck, removing the search bar, tearing tab handles into new windows, etc. That is just UI benefits. That is still ignoring sandboxing, integrated Gears, HTML 5 support, V8, etc.
Oversimplifying the UI doesn't necessarily simplify the user experience.
You're the one who was adamant that Chrome's UI is crazy and overtly complex. It is the simplest UI out there. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how it is complex. You've yet to provide an explanation.
Conversely, I've explained reasons why Chrome is simpler. The lack of a menu bar is not only less clutter, it is part of the design of Chrome. The browser gets out of the way and lets the web take center stage.
Tearing off tabs into seperate windows is extremely easy and intuitive. It simply makes sense for them to be on top. Pop-ups don't exist in Chrome. A page that tries to call a pop-up has the element trapped within that page, but it can be dragged out if you want it. The start page apparently steals a page from Opera's speed dial.
I'm going out of a limb here, but I get the impression you haven't actually used Chrome much. nor read the comic I linked. You shouldn't repeatedly voice opinions on a subject you seem to know so little about.
I find KDE 3 to be my desktop of choice on netbooks because I have so much control over every theming aspect. I can get great functionality with pixel real estate being a premium.
This is a little off-topic, but here is another example. There is a litany of evidence that Intel used illegal, anti-competitive practices against AMD. Every major vendor lined up to testify against Intel because of this. Several countries have already found Intel guilty. But those illegal business tactics were effective to the point that it kept AMD from developing market share, even when they had superior products. Intel cheated, ran AMD into the ground, and even when all the anti-trust trials are over, AMD might not even exist anymore, let alone come out a victor in any way shape or form.
The lesson seems to be that cheaters do prosper. What you might pay in a fine later is a drop in the bucket to winning market share and becoming a monopoly.
The difference in the number of buttons is, let's see... you have no home button, but you always have a tab bar, even if there's only one tab, even score there.
The tab bar inhabits the space that the window decoration normally inhabits. This is effectively free space. This is actually a major gain over Safari, IE and Firefox.
Safari had 6 buttons at one time, but it is down to three buttons on the main bar. Chrome has 6.
However, Safari has a search bar, and a menu bar.
The only reason Chrome can't eliminate more buttons is that the menu bar is gone. The two buttons way on the far right won't be used that often, so they are buried on the right where they don't get in the way.
What you end up seeing on the left are back, forward, refresh, and bookmark.
You're saying that is needlessly complex?
That is as simple as the design can get. Again, let's review. Chrome moves the tab bar to save room, which is a win over Safari. Chrome ditches the needless Search bar. This isn't just space saved. The Awesomebar in Chrome is far better than the auto-suggest features in Firefox and Safari. Chrome has a whopping one more button on the left than Safari, but they have no menu bar. Overall, Chrome is much simpler than Safari.
And, you can configure a window of Chrome to open up with an even simpler interface is you basically just want to see whats inside the window.
For each tab, which has its own process, it has a separate thread for JS unique to that tab/process. It has no permissions unless it is elevated, and even then, that elevation doesn't affect JS in other tabs. And when you leave that domain, the trust relationship is restarted on the next site, even within the same tab.
Like I said to CarpetShark, you should read the Chrome comic.
I also just pulled up Safari on Windows, and it uses the same number of elements as Firefox, and almost an identical UI.
You have the menu-bar.
Below that you have navigation links next to the address bar, and then the search bar. Below that is the bookmark menu (which I almost always turn off).
Safari uses smaller icons than Firefox by default, but Firefox makes it easier to install a theme with smaller icons.
When you same the same number of horizontal rows of elements, are you counting the Mac application menu bar at the top or not?
I only use Linux and Windows. I'm on a Windows box at work right now. I just pulled up a Chrome 3, IE7, and Firefox 3.6a window side-by-side on Windows. Chrome uses half the vertical space on Windows as the other two browsers. IE7 uses slightly more than Firefox 3.6a.
Chrome has the fewest amount of buttons. I also like that the default "home" page isn't a traditional page, but rather thumbnails of the pages you go to most frequently. I don't even have to bother typing in my favorite sites, or going to a bookmark/favorite menu.
With the fewest buttons, how are the controls more complex?
No, you'll feel your feeds. When someone rips you a new one on LJ, your browser slaps you. When someone flames you on 4chan, the browser kicks you in the junk.
Chrome is EXTREMELY different from other browsers.
Everything is a separate process, including plugins. Each process is placed in a sandbox to protect your security and privacy. One tab, or even one plugin in that tab shouldn't be able to crash your whole browser, nor compromise the security of your PC.
The V8 JS engine is also refreshingly different. Do yourself a favor and read this:
Iceweasel is an unofficial build of Firefox with some patches. In reality, I think every major distro includes a few non-upstream patches in their Firefox builds. Mozilla only allows "official" builds to be branded as Firefox. They seemed to ignore the patching other distros did, but at one point the Debian crowd got into an argument with the Mozilla crowd, and now Debian/Ubuntu can't brand their builds as Firefox.
The Mozilla devs seem to give the Linux version of Firefox very little love. I've been secretly hoping for a Qt version of Firefox for ages, which supposedly Nokia was working on. They said they did the bulk of the port in a month, but then it never seemed to finish/surface. But now there are browsers like rekonq and Arora which are very small, and extremely fast. Rekonq is eventually moving to a per-process design like Chrome, and integrates well with KDE.
Actually, Chrome's design was to eliminate most of the clutter so you focus on the inside of the window. Why have an address bar and a search bar? While have the tabs and window buttons on separate vertical lines?
IE's method was to remove the menu bar, which I don't like. But removing clutter is definitely the way to go.
Chrome has a fast JS engine. It separates plug-ins so they can't crash the browser. The interface doesn't get in your way. It sandboxes everything for security. It integrates Gears to use web apps offline.
What is this start-up going to do that Chrome doesn't do?
I haven't read the article, but if I was going with a start-up today, I'd build around Chromium to start, but port it to Qt to use one code-base on all platforms. With the per-process design, you could even call different versions of the rendering engine for different pages/sites, which would be useful for compatibility, and for web design. I'd automatically sync the browser profile online so you have the same settings anywhere you sit down, unless you want to opt-out for privacy concerns. I'd work on a notification system like this: http://blog.abi.sh/2009/silent-diving-seagulls/ I'd jump all over HTML 5, and I'd form strategic partnerships to pre-bundle certain web-apps into the browser for revenue.
You'll note that none of these TVs run Windows because it doesn't make any sense to run a full-blown Windows install on the TV, nor do Sony and Panasonic want to get warranty calls about their TVs being infected with spyware and viruses.
The TVs themselves have a small Linux kernel. Even non-internet ready TVs often have Linux kernels to display the on screen menu. I believe all Sony TVs run Linux.
This may be a little off-topic, but the reason my wife eventually caved and said we should buy a PS3 is BluRay. When we paid $400 for a PS3, most BluRay players were still $500+, and the PS3 was routinely rated the best BluRay player on the market. Add in wifi-fi, gaming, streaming my movies from my PC to my TV, etc. honestly I thought it was a bargain at $400.
If you have a big TV, standard resolution looks pretty crappy. A good upscaled DVD looks nice, don't get me wrong. But good BluRay releases are unfairly gorgeous. And I agree with Lilith here, Iron Man in particular may be the best looking BluRay I've watched to date.
And I'm honestly curious out of the 30 million 360 sales, how many were replacements for broken units? Everyone I know that has a 360 has replaced their unit at least once.
I replaced my PS3, but it wasn't a fault of the hardware. My daughter just filled the optical drive slot with pennies.
I'm not a console fanboy. I buy all the consoles each generation. Let me debunk your FUD.
What do you mean by "normal software"? I agree that the PS3 can browse the Internet, but I'm not sure that's so useful. The Xbox 360 can play DVDs, too.
The PS3 can install Linux out of the box and can play BluRays. A BluRay player is still $200+, and $250+ for a decent one. Add $250 to the price of an XBox 360 and then tell me which is cheaper.
Xbox Live is far superior to the PS3 offering, and I pay only about $35/year. I don't *want* a free, crappy online experience.
XBox Live is better. I agree. But I prefer a free experience since I don't have 25+ hours a week to play my console online.
So? Why would I want to use my console controller on a PC?
I still play PC gaming, and I love the PS2/PS3 controllers. I don't have to buy separate PC controllers for PC gaming. That is nice. You can connect them with the USB cable or bluetooth, since it uses a standard USB connection. This is still a benefit of the PS3 over the 360. You said you were debunking FUD and in reality you're offering opinions, not commenting on facts.
Excuse me? Care to back that up with proof?
How about the litany of developers who claim their games won't run on the 360, or the fact that now that developers know how to code for the PS3, that 360 ports look worse, or that developers have had to lower draw distances for 360 versions, or that the cold hard facts show that the PS3 has more power? Again, you're offering opinions rather than facts.
Overall, I believe cross-platform games look worse on PS3 than they do on Xbox 360. For example, Ghostbusters. But that's just minor. I have yet to see any single PS3 game that looks superior to anything you find on an Xbox.
That was certainly the case when the PS3 first launched, and they just took 360 games and ported them poorly. That certainly isn't the case anymore.
You can get $100 off a PS3 by applying for the Playstation credit card. When I did it, they gave me $150 off the 80 GB model, but apparently that deal has since expired.
There have been reports that the software emulaation works better, so I'm not sure we need the hardware emulation.
A price drop is a must. However, what many people weren't aware of is that Sony was doing a deal if you applied for the Playstation credit card, you got $150 off a PS3. When I purchased my second PS3, I did it through that deal and paid $250 for a PS3, which is the same price as a Wii, for an 80 GB model. That was a pretty good deal.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what I want, which is no small request.
* phpbb or some other fully-functional, fantastic open source forum software that allows people to post and respond like a typical forum.
* Wordpress integration (you can already integrate Wordpress into phpbb) or some approximation there of, so you can post articles/stories on a front portal, written by the staff of a site. Articles would have a link to a forum thread to discuss the article.
* Gallery integration (again already possible) for photos.
The problem is that no one packages this together neatly with a nice consistent theme, great integration, and the right blend of plugins to keep spam-bots off your site.
Now throw Wave into the mix.
A Wave requires that you invite people into the way to see it, or edit it. However a Wave robot tied into a good forum/CMS platform really interests me. Authors on a website can invite a robot into a Wave, which posts the results into their Wordpress/phpbb hybrid. The website staff/authors can instantly and easily edit/collaborate the article itself. The article isn't posted on the site until you invite the Robot, which allows you to work on drafts, or have a workflow process of an editor to sign off on the article.
The CMS/forum is there for end users to read the finished article, and respond with the permissions the CMS/forum gives them. But Wave provides a better means for authors to put content on the site to begin with.
phpbb/Wordpress/Gallery2/Wave would be a fantastic framework for a community portal. I wish I were a php-guru to put it together.
Take email, instant messaging, wiki functionality, and roll it into one, but only better.
Even better, this is an open protocol with code already released that would let you host your own Wave server.
It used to be back in the caveman era that email wasn't a standard protocol, so seperate email systems couldn't talk with each other. I've been wanting one open protocol for IM for ages, so that anyone on any network can talk easily. But again, this is just so much better.
The video is really long, but I found the demo to be worth the time it took to watch. I'm somewhat shocked someone didn't just cut it up into a 5-10 min video on YouTube though.
I don't do that, so I don't get any benefits from Chrome.
Except Chrome's UI is more than just saving vertical space there. There are still tons of benefits, such as having the only auto-complete that doesn't suck, removing the search bar, tearing tab handles into new windows, etc. That is just UI benefits. That is still ignoring sandboxing, integrated Gears, HTML 5 support, V8, etc.
Oversimplifying the UI doesn't necessarily simplify the user experience.
You're the one who was adamant that Chrome's UI is crazy and overtly complex. It is the simplest UI out there. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how it is complex. You've yet to provide an explanation.
Conversely, I've explained reasons why Chrome is simpler. The lack of a menu bar is not only less clutter, it is part of the design of Chrome. The browser gets out of the way and lets the web take center stage.
Tearing off tabs into seperate windows is extremely easy and intuitive. It simply makes sense for them to be on top. Pop-ups don't exist in Chrome. A page that tries to call a pop-up has the element trapped within that page, but it can be dragged out if you want it. The start page apparently steals a page from Opera's speed dial.
I'm going out of a limb here, but I get the impression you haven't actually used Chrome much. nor read the comic I linked. You shouldn't repeatedly voice opinions on a subject you seem to know so little about.
Not to mention that placing the tabs in the window decoration saves space, as opposed to a separate tab bar.
I find KDE 3 to be my desktop of choice on netbooks because I have so much control over every theming aspect. I can get great functionality with pixel real estate being a premium.
This is a little off-topic, but here is another example. There is a litany of evidence that Intel used illegal, anti-competitive practices against AMD. Every major vendor lined up to testify against Intel because of this. Several countries have already found Intel guilty. But those illegal business tactics were effective to the point that it kept AMD from developing market share, even when they had superior products. Intel cheated, ran AMD into the ground, and even when all the anti-trust trials are over, AMD might not even exist anymore, let alone come out a victor in any way shape or form.
The lesson seems to be that cheaters do prosper. What you might pay in a fine later is a drop in the bucket to winning market share and becoming a monopoly.
The difference in the number of buttons is, let's see... you have no home button, but you always have a tab bar, even if there's only one tab, even score there.
The tab bar inhabits the space that the window decoration normally inhabits. This is effectively free space. This is actually a major gain over Safari, IE and Firefox.
Safari had 6 buttons at one time, but it is down to three buttons on the main bar. Chrome has 6.
However, Safari has a search bar, and a menu bar.
The only reason Chrome can't eliminate more buttons is that the menu bar is gone. The two buttons way on the far right won't be used that often, so they are buried on the right where they don't get in the way.
What you end up seeing on the left are back, forward, refresh, and bookmark.
You're saying that is needlessly complex?
That is as simple as the design can get. Again, let's review. Chrome moves the tab bar to save room, which is a win over Safari. Chrome ditches the needless Search bar. This isn't just space saved. The Awesomebar in Chrome is far better than the auto-suggest features in Firefox and Safari. Chrome has a whopping one more button on the left than Safari, but they have no menu bar. Overall, Chrome is much simpler than Safari.
And, you can configure a window of Chrome to open up with an even simpler interface is you basically just want to see whats inside the window.
For each tab, which has its own process, it has a separate thread for JS unique to that tab/process. It has no permissions unless it is elevated, and even then, that elevation doesn't affect JS in other tabs. And when you leave that domain, the trust relationship is restarted on the next site, even within the same tab.
Like I said to CarpetShark, you should read the Chrome comic.
I also just pulled up Safari on Windows, and it uses the same number of elements as Firefox, and almost an identical UI.
You have the menu-bar.
Below that you have navigation links next to the address bar, and then the search bar. Below that is the bookmark menu (which I almost always turn off).
Safari uses smaller icons than Firefox by default, but Firefox makes it easier to install a theme with smaller icons.
When you same the same number of horizontal rows of elements, are you counting the Mac application menu bar at the top or not?
I only use Linux and Windows. I'm on a Windows box at work right now. I just pulled up a Chrome 3, IE7, and Firefox 3.6a window side-by-side on Windows. Chrome uses half the vertical space on Windows as the other two browsers. IE7 uses slightly more than Firefox 3.6a.
Chrome has the fewest amount of buttons. I also like that the default "home" page isn't a traditional page, but rather thumbnails of the pages you go to most frequently. I don't even have to bother typing in my favorite sites, or going to a bookmark/favorite menu.
With the fewest buttons, how are the controls more complex?
http://cic.nist.gov/vrml/vbdetect.html
VRML has been around for over 10 years.
However, I don't expect the technology to take off until the porn sites adopt it more heavily.
No, you'll feel your feeds. When someone rips you a new one on LJ, your browser slaps you. When someone flames you on 4chan, the browser kicks you in the junk.
Chrome is EXTREMELY different from other browsers.
Everything is a separate process, including plugins. Each process is placed in a sandbox to protect your security and privacy. One tab, or even one plugin in that tab shouldn't be able to crash your whole browser, nor compromise the security of your PC.
The V8 JS engine is also refreshingly different. Do yourself a favor and read this:
http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/
Flock already integrates with social networking sites. IE8 does this as well.
I think you're correct that the point of RockMelt is to monetize this.
Iceweasel is an unofficial build of Firefox with some patches. In reality, I think every major distro includes a few non-upstream patches in their Firefox builds. Mozilla only allows "official" builds to be branded as Firefox. They seemed to ignore the patching other distros did, but at one point the Debian crowd got into an argument with the Mozilla crowd, and now Debian/Ubuntu can't brand their builds as Firefox.
The Mozilla devs seem to give the Linux version of Firefox very little love. I've been secretly hoping for a Qt version of Firefox for ages, which supposedly Nokia was working on. They said they did the bulk of the port in a month, but then it never seemed to finish/surface. But now there are browsers like rekonq and Arora which are very small, and extremely fast. Rekonq is eventually moving to a per-process design like Chrome, and integrates well with KDE.
Actually, Chrome's design was to eliminate most of the clutter so you focus on the inside of the window. Why have an address bar and a search bar? While have the tabs and window buttons on separate vertical lines?
IE's method was to remove the menu bar, which I don't like. But removing clutter is definitely the way to go.
Exactly my thoughts.
Chrome has a fast JS engine. It separates plug-ins so they can't crash the browser. The interface doesn't get in your way. It sandboxes everything for security. It integrates Gears to use web apps offline.
What is this start-up going to do that Chrome doesn't do?
I haven't read the article, but if I was going with a start-up today, I'd build around Chromium to start, but port it to Qt to use one code-base on all platforms. With the per-process design, you could even call different versions of the rendering engine for different pages/sites, which would be useful for compatibility, and for web design. I'd automatically sync the browser profile online so you have the same settings anywhere you sit down, unless you want to opt-out for privacy concerns. I'd work on a notification system like this: http://blog.abi.sh/2009/silent-diving-seagulls/ I'd jump all over HTML 5, and I'd form strategic partnerships to pre-bundle certain web-apps into the browser for revenue.
You'll note that none of these TVs run Windows because it doesn't make any sense to run a full-blown Windows install on the TV, nor do Sony and Panasonic want to get warranty calls about their TVs being infected with spyware and viruses.
The TVs themselves have a small Linux kernel. Even non-internet ready TVs often have Linux kernels to display the on screen menu. I believe all Sony TVs run Linux.
I checked, and Sony isn't doing the same deal anymore, but they are doing $100 off a PS3 right now.
http://www.sonyrewards.com/en/gateway/?offerlink=srnowps3
This may be a little off-topic, but the reason my wife eventually caved and said we should buy a PS3 is BluRay. When we paid $400 for a PS3, most BluRay players were still $500+, and the PS3 was routinely rated the best BluRay player on the market. Add in wifi-fi, gaming, streaming my movies from my PC to my TV, etc. honestly I thought it was a bargain at $400.
If you have a big TV, standard resolution looks pretty crappy. A good upscaled DVD looks nice, don't get me wrong. But good BluRay releases are unfairly gorgeous. And I agree with Lilith here, Iron Man in particular may be the best looking BluRay I've watched to date.
And I'm honestly curious out of the 30 million 360 sales, how many were replacements for broken units? Everyone I know that has a 360 has replaced their unit at least once.
I replaced my PS3, but it wasn't a fault of the hardware. My daughter just filled the optical drive slot with pennies.
I'm not a console fanboy. I buy all the consoles each generation. Let me debunk your FUD.
What do you mean by "normal software"? I agree that the PS3 can browse the Internet, but I'm not sure that's so useful. The Xbox 360 can play DVDs, too.
The PS3 can install Linux out of the box and can play BluRays. A BluRay player is still $200+, and $250+ for a decent one. Add $250 to the price of an XBox 360 and then tell me which is cheaper.
Xbox Live is far superior to the PS3 offering, and I pay only about $35/year. I don't *want* a free, crappy online experience.
XBox Live is better. I agree. But I prefer a free experience since I don't have 25+ hours a week to play my console online.
So? Why would I want to use my console controller on a PC?
I still play PC gaming, and I love the PS2/PS3 controllers. I don't have to buy separate PC controllers for PC gaming. That is nice. You can connect them with the USB cable or bluetooth, since it uses a standard USB connection. This is still a benefit of the PS3 over the 360. You said you were debunking FUD and in reality you're offering opinions, not commenting on facts.
Excuse me? Care to back that up with proof?
How about the litany of developers who claim their games won't run on the 360, or the fact that now that developers know how to code for the PS3, that 360 ports look worse, or that developers have had to lower draw distances for 360 versions, or that the cold hard facts show that the PS3 has more power? Again, you're offering opinions rather than facts.
Overall, I believe cross-platform games look worse on PS3 than they do on Xbox 360. For example, Ghostbusters. But that's just minor. I have yet to see any single PS3 game that looks superior to anything you find on an Xbox.
That was certainly the case when the PS3 first launched, and they just took 360 games and ported them poorly. That certainly isn't the case anymore.
You can get $100 off a PS3 by applying for the Playstation credit card. When I did it, they gave me $150 off the 80 GB model, but apparently that deal has since expired.
http://www.sonyrewards.com/en/gateway/?offerlink=srnowps3
There have been reports that the software emulaation works better, so I'm not sure we need the hardware emulation.
A price drop is a must. However, what many people weren't aware of is that Sony was doing a deal if you applied for the Playstation credit card, you got $150 off a PS3. When I purchased my second PS3, I did it through that deal and paid $250 for a PS3, which is the same price as a Wii, for an 80 GB model. That was a pretty good deal.