"If passenger elevators really would fall to the passengers' deaths if the cables broke, do you think that there would be any distinction between passenger and freight elevators?"
Wait a sec... are you saying that I'm risking my life every time I take the freight elevator instead of the (slower, more crowded) passenger elevator? Will I really plunge to the bottom of the shaft if the cable breaks from too much rough sex or whatever?
I always thought the distinction was that freight elevators are big and bare, and passenger elevators are plush and fitted with modern conveniences, like attendants. Little did I know.
Asia? Well, sure, if you exclude everything but Japan and South Korea. And regarding the former, this Economist article once again seems relevant: "Better than people: Why the Japanese want their robots to act more like humans." It's one (intelligent) journalist's take on why Japan seems so open to new technology while Western culture is more ready to view it with suspicion.
"1 more" in this Firefox capture is bold, but definitely not antialiased. Take another look zoomed in. Maybe your browser cache is having problems (somehow?)
More topically, as an Ibook owner myself, I think it's only a matter of time before a worm or virus comes along to wipe that smug grin off our faces. I honestly don't understand how anyone can argue otherwise. There have been numerous (dozens) of security patches released through Software Update for bugs which, had they only been discovered by black hats, could give us hell on earth. Especially considering OS-X viruses would necessarily be more creative than their PC counterparts--not just deleting shit, but flinging our private documents across our address book contacts, perhaps. Certainly, MAC knows this, which is why MAC doesn't go about screaming from the rooftops about MAC's supposed immunity from virii.
Look at the "1 more," "8 more," &c. on the left column. Firefox doesn't antialias it for some reason. It's the only text I've ever seen on my computer to be aliased.
This particular text doesn't happen to be unevenly kerned in Firefox, but the un-antialiasing should be obvious. Now check out Camino.
By the way, wouldn't it look even worse if it were QuickDraw? Those algorithms are old, old, old--QuickDraw text is what you see when you launch Carbon apps, and not even all Carbon apps, but the ones that suck extra special, like AOL's AIM client. ATSUI is Quartz's text toolkit, which I think Gecko uses (but perhaps only on a glyph-by-glyph basis). Could be wrong on this.
No, I think he just assumed--as I would if I hadn't done the research--that Camino doesn't support extensions, period. Apparently there is some kind of FlashBlock-esque thing for Camino, so that's taken care of. If you have a favorite Firefox extension that won't work in Camino, obviously, then, you'd have to stick to Firefox. In my case, I have a couple favorite Safari extensions that don't seem to have Camino equivalents, so I'm staying with Safari for now.
Now I'm bored. What the hell were we just talking about?
Who, me? Why would he say "extensions" to mean "XUL"? More broadly, who cares what language or technology lies behind something like FlashBlock, so long as it works?
Wait a minute. On second thought, I'll disagree. Why did you buy a Mac to begin with, or install Linux, or even Windows, except to take advantage of the unique strengths of each of these platforms? If you're just going to try to use the same software everywhere you go, what's the point of having different OSes at all?
Just a thought (from someone who uses three different BitTorrent clients depending on my mood).
Yeah, that's true. Personally, I use OS X at work and at home, so at least I'm not forced to restrict my apps to the least common denominator in the interest of consistency. Not that I'm sure I'd do that in your shoes, anyway.
Apple could be any kind of company it wants. I'm sure they'd do fine, from a business perspective, if they ditched OS X tomorrow and began manufacturing commodity PCs. Just like they'd do fine converting their business to software-only. But in either case, there'd be no more Mac platform. In the one case, there'd be a Mac OS that everyone would use with manufacturer-included mushy keyboards and gaudy fifty-button mice with cords as thick as hangman's rope. Your hardware would arrive in a brown cardboard box full of packing peanuts. In the other, you'd have quality hardware (for which you paid the Apple-brand premium) on which you'd be running Windows or Linux... 'nuff said.
Your definition of "platform" fails to include the total user experience, which is exactly what Apple aims to do. The hardware on this platform is inseparable from the stuff that shows up on your display.
None of this implies that Apple can't license its platform to other manufacturers (or software developers, for that matter). Just that what Apple's selling is a platform, not "software" or "hardware." I guess this is all kind of abstract, anyway.
Unless you think the reason that Apple, a company led by some of the most politically progressive executives in American industry, isn't licensing Mac OS X is because their licensees might be women or minorities, that argument of yours is... uh... words fail me, but "COMPLETELY OFFTOPIC" comes to mind. And the phrase "MISSING THE POINT." But props for the condescension.
Let's end the silliness right here. Apple doesn't sell hardware. It doesn't sell software. What it sells is platforms: platforms for checking your email, sorting your photos, communicating with faraway friends and relatives, cutting that documentary you've always wanted to produce. Trying to tear apart the software and hardware aspects of this platform just doesn't make any sense, unless you're a Dell kind of guy.
I hate to break it to you, but there's no "concept," as you put it, of real property either. These are just convenient labels we apply to things in order to make life more pleasant for ourselves by enabling commerce and facilitating the creation of common grounds. I think some guy named Saussure elaborates on this idea using more academic (read: continental philosophers') jargon, if you're that kind of guy.
But it isn't about the look. It's about the feel. Seriously, I'm not trying to be funny; things in Firefox just don't behave the way they're supposed to, no matter the theme. For instance, passwords aren't stored in the Keychain. Text areas aren't native widgets and so feel alien to the Mac--no Cocoa spellcheck, for one thing. Finally, Gecko's text rendering is just plain shit: drunken, syncopated kerning and inconsistent antialiasing are just two of the more blatant problems.
Camino doesn't suffer from these problems. Somehow it even overcomes Gecko's text problems.
"one of the greatest things about firefox is that it is almost exactly the same on any platform"
So was Microsoft Word 6.0, and that was universally hailed as a flaming turd mountain. Behaving exactly the same on every platform, it turns out, is in fact a terrible drawback. Something anyone with a Mac ought to know.
It's been a while, so I just downloaded the latest nightly and I'll give it another try. I doubt you can drop Firefox extensions straight into Camino, but there do seem to be extensions (adblock, etc.) available. (And for Safari, too, FWIW.)
I agree--the guys who develop the GUI portion of FireFox don't have good taste, or at least not the same aesthetic sense as people who use and enjoy the Mac. Camino's very much better in this respect. But I'd like to learn why, as someone who runs Safari with the Saft and SafariStand plugins, would I want to switch to Camino? I tried it out a couple months back, but didn't appreciate how much slower than Safari it was (probably due to Gecko). But perhaps I overlooked some features. Can I ask you what's so compelling about Camino?
Slashdot Mirror
That's rather simplistic, but yes, that's the culture there. Surprisingly misogynistic, too. (Disclaimer: I'm Japanese.)
"If passenger elevators really would fall to the passengers' deaths if the cables broke, do you think that there would be any distinction between passenger and freight elevators?"
Wait a sec... are you saying that I'm risking my life every time I take the freight elevator instead of the (slower, more crowded) passenger elevator? Will I really plunge to the bottom of the shaft if the cable breaks from too much rough sex or whatever?
I always thought the distinction was that freight elevators are big and bare, and passenger elevators are plush and fitted with modern conveniences, like attendants. Little did I know.
Asia? Well, sure, if you exclude everything but Japan and South Korea. And regarding the former, this Economist article once again seems relevant: "Better than people: Why the Japanese want their robots to act more like humans." It's one (intelligent) journalist's take on why Japan seems so open to new technology while Western culture is more ready to view it with suspicion.
"1 more" in this Firefox capture is bold, but definitely not antialiased. Take another look zoomed in. Maybe your browser cache is having problems (somehow?)
HAHAHA! You just made my day.
More topically, as an Ibook owner myself, I think it's only a matter of time before a worm or virus comes along to wipe that smug grin off our faces. I honestly don't understand how anyone can argue otherwise. There have been numerous (dozens) of security patches released through Software Update for bugs which, had they only been discovered by black hats, could give us hell on earth. Especially considering OS-X viruses would necessarily be more creative than their PC counterparts--not just deleting shit, but flinging our private documents across our address book contacts, perhaps. Certainly, MAC knows this, which is why MAC doesn't go about screaming from the rooftops about MAC's supposed immunity from virii.
Look at the "1 more," "8 more," &c. on the left column. Firefox doesn't antialias it for some reason. It's the only text I've ever seen on my computer to be aliased.
Well, judge for yourself.
. png. pngq n.png
Firefox: http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8753/picture11mb
Camino: http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/1100/picture27en
Safari: http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/4291/picture36
This particular text doesn't happen to be unevenly kerned in Firefox, but the un-antialiasing should be obvious. Now check out Camino.
By the way, wouldn't it look even worse if it were QuickDraw? Those algorithms are old, old, old--QuickDraw text is what you see when you launch Carbon apps, and not even all Carbon apps, but the ones that suck extra special, like AOL's AIM client. ATSUI is Quartz's text toolkit, which I think Gecko uses (but perhaps only on a glyph-by-glyph basis). Could be wrong on this.
That's exactly why I resent grammar/spelling nazis--if everyone followed their advice, it'd be harder at a glance to filter out the idiots.
(That said, some of the smartest people I know are dyslexic. And rulebreakers in general.)
No, I think he just assumed--as I would if I hadn't done the research--that Camino doesn't support extensions, period. Apparently there is some kind of FlashBlock-esque thing for Camino, so that's taken care of. If you have a favorite Firefox extension that won't work in Camino, obviously, then, you'd have to stick to Firefox. In my case, I have a couple favorite Safari extensions that don't seem to have Camino equivalents, so I'm staying with Safari for now.
Now I'm bored. What the hell were we just talking about?
Who, me? Why would he say "extensions" to mean "XUL"? More broadly, who cares what language or technology lies behind something like FlashBlock, so long as it works?
Hi, putko. Are you done being a bigoted, anti-Semitic ignoramus?
Wait a minute. On second thought, I'll disagree. Why did you buy a Mac to begin with, or install Linux, or even Windows, except to take advantage of the unique strengths of each of these platforms? If you're just going to try to use the same software everywhere you go, what's the point of having different OSes at all?
Just a thought (from someone who uses three different BitTorrent clients depending on my mood).
Yeah, that's true. Personally, I use OS X at work and at home, so at least I'm not forced to restrict my apps to the least common denominator in the interest of consistency. Not that I'm sure I'd do that in your shoes, anyway.
Apple could be any kind of company it wants. I'm sure they'd do fine, from a business perspective, if they ditched OS X tomorrow and began manufacturing commodity PCs. Just like they'd do fine converting their business to software-only. But in either case, there'd be no more Mac platform. In the one case, there'd be a Mac OS that everyone would use with manufacturer-included mushy keyboards and gaudy fifty-button mice with cords as thick as hangman's rope. Your hardware would arrive in a brown cardboard box full of packing peanuts. In the other, you'd have quality hardware (for which you paid the Apple-brand premium) on which you'd be running Windows or Linux... 'nuff said.
Your definition of "platform" fails to include the total user experience, which is exactly what Apple aims to do. The hardware on this platform is inseparable from the stuff that shows up on your display.
None of this implies that Apple can't license its platform to other manufacturers (or software developers, for that matter). Just that what Apple's selling is a platform, not "software" or "hardware." I guess this is all kind of abstract, anyway.
Unless you think the reason that Apple, a company led by some of the most politically progressive executives in American industry, isn't licensing Mac OS X is because their licensees might be women or minorities, that argument of yours is... uh... words fail me, but "COMPLETELY OFFTOPIC" comes to mind. And the phrase "MISSING THE POINT." But props for the condescension.
Let's end the silliness right here. Apple doesn't sell hardware. It doesn't sell software. What it sells is platforms: platforms for checking your email, sorting your photos, communicating with faraway friends and relatives, cutting that documentary you've always wanted to produce. Trying to tear apart the software and hardware aspects of this platform just doesn't make any sense, unless you're a Dell kind of guy.
I hate to break it to you, but there's no "concept," as you put it, of real property either. These are just convenient labels we apply to things in order to make life more pleasant for ourselves by enabling commerce and facilitating the creation of common grounds. I think some guy named Saussure elaborates on this idea using more academic (read: continental philosophers') jargon, if you're that kind of guy.
But it isn't about the look. It's about the feel. Seriously, I'm not trying to be funny; things in Firefox just don't behave the way they're supposed to, no matter the theme. For instance, passwords aren't stored in the Keychain. Text areas aren't native widgets and so feel alien to the Mac--no Cocoa spellcheck, for one thing. Finally, Gecko's text rendering is just plain shit: drunken, syncopated kerning and inconsistent antialiasing are just two of the more blatant problems.
Camino doesn't suffer from these problems. Somehow it even overcomes Gecko's text problems.
That right?
"one of the greatest things about firefox is that it is almost exactly the same on any platform"
So was Microsoft Word 6.0, and that was universally hailed as a flaming turd mountain. Behaving exactly the same on every platform, it turns out, is in fact a terrible drawback. Something anyone with a Mac ought to know.
It's been a while, so I just downloaded the latest nightly and I'll give it another try. I doubt you can drop Firefox extensions straight into Camino, but there do seem to be extensions (adblock, etc.) available. (And for Safari, too, FWIW.)
Thanks for the reply.
Here's some others to choose from. I'm kinda fond of SafariBlock. Hope this helps.
http://pimpmysafari.com/plugins/?c=Adblocking
I agree--the guys who develop the GUI portion of FireFox don't have good taste, or at least not the same aesthetic sense as people who use and enjoy the Mac. Camino's very much better in this respect. But I'd like to learn why, as someone who runs Safari with the Saft and SafariStand plugins, would I want to switch to Camino? I tried it out a couple months back, but didn't appreciate how much slower than Safari it was (probably due to Gecko). But perhaps I overlooked some features. Can I ask you what's so compelling about Camino?
I'm pretty sure I speak for most Mac users when I say I don't give a shit about Windows or Linux.
And that's why you're not born to be a Mac user. :-)