Perhaps you're Canadian, which is basically the same as being American. Maybe your doctor only has four advertisement posters, instead of the typical five or more at an American doctor's office.
Regardless of whether they're using XHTML or HTML, they should still be expected to design a page that is standards-conformant. The problem of standards-conformance is independent of whether they're using XHTML or HTML. It's the fact that they're not writing valid code that is the problem. Specifically the fact that they're designing and implementing a product that should, in all cases, produce valid code.
I'd lose the ads first of all. Even if you're not getting any actual business, it still is a site promoting your business, and as such should appear professional.
I'm glad that you're a faithful Christian. Good for you. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with how well you fix or set up computer systems.
As stated previously, it is not a problem with the W3C's validator. The site designers have just plain failed to write standards-conformant code. And if they don't care enough to write clean, standards-conformant XHTML, then I don't trust them to be able to write secure and quality PHP code. There is no way I'll use their product when they fail to take such basic quality factors into account.
It's those kind of minor errors that are totally unacceptable. If they code HTML poorly enough to forget to use end tags, then I hesitate to even consider how terrible their PHP code is. That is not the kind of system I would use for a personal web site, let alone one that is for a client or a business.
It looks very unprofessional for a site basically selling your services to contain advertisements along the side. I would be hesitant to deal with a doctor who stuck advertisements on the side of his office sign, just as I would be with a computer systems developer who sticks ads all over his commercial website.
Not only that, but the ads are very religious in nature. Perhaps Google took the "customer service" text to mean "religious service", and thus stuck religious ads all along the right side.
Thanks for the attempt, but I would not deal with you because of the appearance and content of your website.
As of this time, seven errors are reported, plus a number of warnings.
It's difficult to tell whether it is a lack of ability, a lack of initiative, or a lack of quality control. Perhaps it is a mixture of all three factors. Regardless, it makes their project look bad. Very bad.
The least that one should expect from a web developer is that the developer's own website is standards-conformant. The lack of professionalism shown by this group of web developers rubs off on all open source developers, unfortunately.
They are, however, far better than PHP-Nuke, which currently offers 96 errors[1] on their homepage.
Of course 3dfx attempted to promote the idea that throughput is more important than implementing far more complex graphics-related tasks in silicon. It was far easier and cheaper for them to take an existing design and increase the GPU clockrate and the on-board memory clockrate, thus increasing throughput, rather than implementing various graphics algorithms in hardware. So they hyped throughput over features, as would be expected when considering their financial/economical considerations.
And? What exactly is your point? The workstation versions of Windows NT, much like the workstation distros of Linux, have been built upon server foundations.
It's quite plausible that some people could tell the difference at that lower range. That is still relatively close to the ~26 fps limit of human vision. Of course there will be people with brains that are capable of processing more images/second. I don't doubt that for a moment. But what we're talking about here is the unnoticeable effects of minor fps jumps when we're in the 180 fps and above range.
Indeed, monitors with refresh rates that are less than the FPS being displayed are indeed a technical limitation. But assuming that the technology is, in the future, capable of displaying 180+ frames per second, there is still the human limiting factor way back at approx. 30 frames/second.
Up until a point. And that is usually around 30 frames per second for most individuals, which is indeed above the perceivable ~26 fps. An increase from 185 fps to 189 fps will not be noticed as either a single image nor as better flowing animation.
Yes, exactly. It is meant for new Linux users, or those who are not interested in becoming Linux gurus. New/common users are its target audience, of course.
No, I think they're as specific as possible. If a Linspire user is told to use the "text editor" to open a file, all they have to do is click on the "Text Editor" menu icon and away they go. It's very straightforward and sensible.
BeOS is still being very actively developed, be it in the form of yellowTab Zeta OS and BeOS Max. Indeed, it is incorrect to call it "dead" while it is still under very rapid and frequent development!
And there's no basis to suggest that Linspire will follow in the steps of BeOS just because a version of both were given away for free at one point.
Indeed, it is not specifically designed for servers. But that's not to say that it can't run Apache. Of course it can! And it will do so very well. Now, it may very well not be suitable for a large-scale, enterprise server application. But it can be used, like most any other PC Linux distro, as a server operating system.
I could see a Linux poweruser not being overly satisfied with Linspire. If you're used to running Debian or Slackware, then you'll probably not be all that impressed. Linspire aims to make Linux easy to use. And in doing so they may alienate users who prefer the power of a more traditional Linux distro. But for a person who is new to Linux, it provides a very enjoyable and usable experience.
It all depends on what type of user you are, and what sort of system you're looking for. While it is great for new users or those who just want a system who works, it may not be what a person who's looking for a more hands-on experience would want.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you're Canadian, which is basically the same as being American. Maybe your doctor only has four advertisement posters, instead of the typical five or more at an American doctor's office.
Regardless of whether they're using XHTML or HTML, they should still be expected to design a page that is standards-conformant. The problem of standards-conformance is independent of whether they're using XHTML or HTML. It's the fact that they're not writing valid code that is the problem. Specifically the fact that they're designing and implementing a product that should, in all cases, produce valid code.
I'd lose the ads first of all. Even if you're not getting any actual business, it still is a site promoting your business, and as such should appear professional.
I'm glad that you're a faithful Christian. Good for you. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with how well you fix or set up computer systems.
Maybe your American doctors have succumbed to advertising. Our British doctors have not.
As stated previously, it is not a problem with the W3C's validator. The site designers have just plain failed to write standards-conformant code. And if they don't care enough to write clean, standards-conformant XHTML, then I don't trust them to be able to write secure and quality PHP code. There is no way I'll use their product when they fail to take such basic quality factors into account.
It's those kind of minor errors that are totally unacceptable. If they code HTML poorly enough to forget to use end tags, then I hesitate to even consider how terrible their PHP code is. That is not the kind of system I would use for a personal web site, let alone one that is for a client or a business.
It looks very unprofessional for a site basically selling your services to contain advertisements along the side. I would be hesitant to deal with a doctor who stuck advertisements on the side of his office sign, just as I would be with a computer systems developer who sticks ads all over his commercial website.
Not only that, but the ads are very religious in nature. Perhaps Google took the "customer service" text to mean "religious service", and thus stuck religious ads all along the right side.
Thanks for the attempt, but I would not deal with you because of the appearance and content of your website.
Indeed, it is quite disgraceful when such major web developers are unable to write valid XHTML (in this case) for their own website.
w .joomla.org%2F
u ke.org/
Check if for yourself:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fww
As of this time, seven errors are reported, plus a number of warnings.
It's difficult to tell whether it is a lack of ability, a lack of initiative, or a lack of quality control. Perhaps it is a mixture of all three factors. Regardless, it makes their project look bad. Very bad.
The least that one should expect from a web developer is that the developer's own website is standards-conformant. The lack of professionalism shown by this group of web developers rubs off on all open source developers, unfortunately.
They are, however, far better than PHP-Nuke, which currently offers 96 errors[1] on their homepage.
References:
[1] http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.phpn
Of course 3dfx attempted to promote the idea that throughput is more important than implementing far more complex graphics-related tasks in silicon. It was far easier and cheaper for them to take an existing design and increase the GPU clockrate and the on-board memory clockrate, thus increasing throughput, rather than implementing various graphics algorithms in hardware. So they hyped throughput over features, as would be expected when considering their financial/economical considerations.
No, she actually is made out of plastic.
And? What exactly is your point? The workstation versions of Windows NT, much like the workstation distros of Linux, have been built upon server foundations.
It's quite plausible that some people could tell the difference at that lower range. That is still relatively close to the ~26 fps limit of human vision. Of course there will be people with brains that are capable of processing more images/second. I don't doubt that for a moment. But what we're talking about here is the unnoticeable effects of minor fps jumps when we're in the 180 fps and above range.
Indeed, monitors with refresh rates that are less than the FPS being displayed are indeed a technical limitation. But assuming that the technology is, in the future, capable of displaying 180+ frames per second, there is still the human limiting factor way back at approx. 30 frames/second.
Indeed, the installation program is a real gem. I was hoping that PC-BSD would be as easy to install. Unfortunately, the installer crashed.
Up until a point. And that is usually around 30 frames per second for most individuals, which is indeed above the perceivable ~26 fps. An increase from 185 fps to 189 fps will not be noticed as either a single image nor as better flowing animation.
She looks like she's made of plastic.
Yes, exactly. It is meant for new Linux users, or those who are not interested in becoming Linux gurus. New/common users are its target audience, of course.
No, I think they're as specific as possible. If a Linspire user is told to use the "text editor" to open a file, all they have to do is click on the "Text Editor" menu icon and away they go. It's very straightforward and sensible.
BeOS is still being very actively developed, be it in the form of yellowTab Zeta OS and BeOS Max. Indeed, it is incorrect to call it "dead" while it is still under very rapid and frequent development!
And there's no basis to suggest that Linspire will follow in the steps of BeOS just because a version of both were given away for free at one point.
No, sir, you're quite wrong.
error (noun) -> "to err" (infinitive verb)
flaw (noun) -> "to flaw" (infinitive verb)
Indeed, it is not specifically designed for servers. But that's not to say that it can't run Apache. Of course it can! And it will do so very well. Now, it may very well not be suitable for a large-scale, enterprise server application. But it can be used, like most any other PC Linux distro, as a server operating system.
There was previously an operating systems project named "Freedows".
http://sourceforge.net/projects/freedows/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedows_OS
It's good that they did. It has allowed the tradition and pure power of BeOS to still be usable today.
And then there's always Zeta OS. I would hardly call BeOS "dead".
To suggest that Linspire will go the way of Be, Inc. is to flaw.
They are running Linux, but what exact distro is unknown.
. coms pire.com
http://uptime.netcraft.net/up/graph?site=linspire
http://uptime.netcraft.net/up/graph?site=info.lin
I could see a Linux poweruser not being overly satisfied with Linspire. If you're used to running Debian or Slackware, then you'll probably not be all that impressed. Linspire aims to make Linux easy to use. And in doing so they may alienate users who prefer the power of a more traditional Linux distro. But for a person who is new to Linux, it provides a very enjoyable and usable experience.
It all depends on what type of user you are, and what sort of system you're looking for. While it is great for new users or those who just want a system who works, it may not be what a person who's looking for a more hands-on experience would want.