Just one more proof (along with the generic TLD namespaces) that the Internet was not well thought out (from an administrative standpoint - technically it works great) at its conception. Someone decided, by fiat, what to do, and that's what we're stuck with now. No wonder people get ticked; I would too if my online presence was being handled in a willy-nilly fashion.
Until the Internet has a governing body that fairly represents all interests, there are going to be problems. Didn't we just have a story about the ICANN board being stacked in favor of corporate interests? That's what I'm talking about here.
(I also think that all TLDs should be cc's, or.int for truly international concerns, with the other 6 existing and 7 proposed TLDs as standard 2LDs underneath them. No grabbing your trademark in all other available 2LDs either, leave them for others that also have a valid claim to the name - but I suppose that can be left to the individual country's trademark laws. But that's another issue.)
Whuuu? M14 runs like a champ on my PII-233, even with Windows on 64 MB. Suffice it to say that your experiences don't jibe with mine. Have you tried looking at Opera as an alternative? I know that quite a few people are very pleased with it.
So if Slashdot runs an Apple story, with the Apple logo on top, and everyone trashes Apple...then we (Slashdot community) are in violation of UCITA? That would be using "logos in a derogatory way against them" - right?
Actually, the rounded corner is easily handled with a simple PNG. As long as you keep the "main" area white, you can fade any color to it by changing the alpha channel transparency.
More self-fulfilling prophecy. No one develops for the Mac, so no one uses the Mac, so why should I develop for the Mac? Hmm, maybe if you did develop for Macs, there'd be more software that would attract more users, that would attract more developers.
If platform X (whatever that is) is the superior platform on its own merits, take the leap and build for it! Why just follow the herd? Think for yourself. Think Different.
Back on topic, though, the idea of loadable bundles is very cool. It sounds much more extendable and flexible than current methods in either Windows or Linux. If it works as seamlessly as it sounds it will, the user experience should be terrific.
DAGNABBIT! That means we need to add another level to the DNS hierarchy for all the planets.
.me
.ve
.te
.ma
.ju
.sa
.ur
.ne
.pl
I can see it already. My domain name is going to grow to something like www.christtrek.web.us.te.
Of course, the question remains whether satellites fall under the domain of the primary body or get their own TLD. And someone's going to petition for "domain name rights" for asteroids and other minor planets.
My telnet app of choice is BetterTelnet, which is very common. It has an ssh option. It doesn't work on my freebie copy, and I so seldom need ssh that I haven't bothered to register it and get a full version.
I predict lots of Linux zealotry to follow this post. What the heck was c|net thinking? Thanks for stoking the fires, emmett.
Anyone with sense knows that Linux and MacOS have vastly different user bases. Comparing the two head to head just isn't going to work. Give it a year, though. With a BSD-based MacOS X, and a little more time for Linux application development, 2001 will probably be a great year for everybody concerned: the average end-user (Mac guy) is going to have excellent stability, and the uber-geek (Linux dude) will have kick-butt productivity apps. Best of both worlds!
A lot of those changes have been extremely positive.
I did say undue restrictions and alterations. State election of senators seems a good idea to make the federal gov't more responsive to the states it's supposedly comprised of. I don't remember ever learning that's how it was originally done, and I'd be really interested to learn why it was changed. I've never agreed with the concept of income tax. I think many of the federal agencies that run our lives today are in violation of the 10th Amendment, which reserves rights not specifically outlined for the states.
Due process and the others you mention are all good things. But the gov't has enacted quite a few changes that are just as equally bad, IMO.
I knew as soon as I posted the message that someone was going to take it out of context.:-S
I've been looking at the Constitution Party as a way of defending my inalienable rights. The Constitution the way the framers intended it, without all the undue restrictions and alterations the past 200 years have added. Freedom is good.
I agree that iCab is looking really good. But as a Mac user too, I welcome anything that's not Micros~1, as do most/.-ers, I assume. This is why I have been trying every Mozilla milestone since M10, and why I'm an alpha tester for MacOpera. We need alternatives, we need choice, we need support for standards.
However, I agree that a nightly build is hardly newsworthy.
I grabbed all the OS schemes from kaleidoscope.net just for giggles. I didn't say I particularly liked the look of Win3.1, just that it was more usable because of more intuitive widgets (compared to MacOS X).
All the Kal schemes are going to be functional. (They're all the same MacOS after all.) That's not the point though. Usability and functionality are different beasts. I think everyone would agree that *n*x is more functional (can do more) than MacOS, but MacOS is more usable.
I doubt it. If *n*x hackers had really wanted to implement a clean, usable UI, they could have been taking pointers from MacOS all along. Has it been done yet? Nope. I doubt this will change just because the new MacOS has a BSD foundation.
Latest I have heard is that Terminal won't be part of the standard install, but it will ship on the System software CD as an optional component.
I hope so. It would be best if there was some standard default terminal app, rather than everyone using a different one. If it sucks you can always get another, but sometimes it's easiest (especially if conversing with someone about what you're doing) if you can both get into the same environment.
The mouseover states mean that you have to mouse over them to get that info. A UI that requires interaction to get basic information isn't doing its job.
The "traffic light" metaphor is not the best. What does it mean to "go" a window, or "yield" it, or "stop" it? The metaphor does not directly relate to the object in question here (the window). A traffic light has three states and the window has three actions. That's about the extent of the similarity.
Look at the widgets in MacOS 8/9. Close is a blank widget. No box, no window. Max/min toggle is two different sized boxes nexted. Signifies the two sizes you toggle between by clicking it. Windowshade (minimize) looks like a window with a title bar. Again it signifies the two states you toggle between.
Look at the widgets in Win3.1 Close is a minus sign. Pretty obvious to any 6-y.o. Maximize is an up arrow. Makes the window bigger. Minimize is a down arrow. Makes the window smaller.
Look at the widgets in Win95/98, even though their placement so close together is bad. I've misclicked too many times. Close is an X, which is pretty intuitive, too! Minimize looks like a button in the task bar, very small. Full-screen/multi-window toggle button is the least intuitive until you try it, just as bad as the OS X color coded buttons.
Give users a picture, don't expect them to remember the associations of which color does what. Pictures are best. If you want to color code in addition to that, fine, but don't make it the primary distinguishing feature.
I couldn't agree with you more. If you have to remember how things work, that means you can forget how things work. The UI itself should tell you how it works. I think that Apple has taken a big step backward in the UI department. The first priority should have been just making the move to *n*x and leaving UI "refinements" until later. If they'd done that, maybe we'd have OS X already.
You're also right about the Win3.1 buttons. I use Kaleidoscope on my Mac, and use the Win3.1 scheme more than the Win95/98 schemes. The MacOS and Win95/98 widgets are probably about even, except the Mac has better placement. (Keep the close widget away from the others!)
AFAIC there's very little that needs to change from the way MacOS 8/9 worked. A real Trash can on the desktop, separate Apple/Application/Control menus instead of a Dock, spring-loaded icons, tabbed windows...these were all great features. A file browser is OK I guess, but I'd prefer if the current browsing system was an option too.
The one thing I'd add to the MacOS core UI would be virtual desktops. Multiple workspaces is something most Mac users could benefit from.
Absolutely. A flat naming system will end up helping absolutely no one. Those that propose abolishing TLDs are absolutely clueless.
What we really need is a good standardized selection of 2LDs to be under a country TLD. (If you're truly international and not based in any country you get.int - simple.) If one country (say the US) wants to let XYZ Corp register xyzcorp.com.us, xyzcorp.net.us, and xyzcorp.web.us, that's up to whomever is in charge of the.us TLD.
Personally I feel that proper usage of these 2LDs should be enforced. The web is not about trademarks. It's about finding information. The system should be helping you do that.
I've currently got a.org address but I always wanted to be a.web. It's just an online activity, I'm not a non-profit organization!
As far as switching to this new system, I think it should be an all-at-once deal. "At midnight GMT January 1, 2001, the new domain names will go into effect. Please make a note of it." If you allow a transition period, everyone's going to want to keep clinging to their old names.
Slashdot Mirror
Just one more proof (along with the generic TLD namespaces) that the Internet was not well thought out (from an administrative standpoint - technically it works great) at its conception. Someone decided, by fiat, what to do, and that's what we're stuck with now. No wonder people get ticked; I would too if my online presence was being handled in a willy-nilly fashion.
Until the Internet has a governing body that fairly represents all interests, there are going to be problems. Didn't we just have a story about the ICANN board being stacked in favor of corporate interests? That's what I'm talking about here.
(I also think that all TLDs should be cc's, or .int for truly international concerns, with the other 6 existing and 7 proposed TLDs as standard 2LDs underneath them. No grabbing your trademark in all other available 2LDs either, leave them for others that also have a valid claim to the name - but I suppose that can be left to the individual country's trademark laws. But that's another issue.)
Whuuu? M14 runs like a champ on my PII-233, even with Windows on 64 MB. Suffice it to say that your experiences don't jibe with mine. Have you tried looking at Opera as an alternative? I know that quite a few people are very pleased with it.
I have to agree with veldrane. Ranma ½ kicks butt. Taco, what's with ignoring the comedies? They're the best, IMO.
I get my stuff online from Right Stuf. Good selection.
So if Slashdot runs an Apple story, with the Apple logo on top, and everyone trashes Apple...then we (Slashdot community) are in violation of UCITA? That would be using "logos in a derogatory way against them" - right?
S tory here.
Pretty mindbending stuff, indeed. Once upon a time I could follow that sort of discussion, but I've been out of academia too long.
Actually, the rounded corner is easily handled with a simple PNG. As long as you keep the "main" area white, you can fade any color to it by changing the alpha channel transparency.
What do you mean "killing Opera"? If bad HTML is making it die, that's Opera's fault for not being robust enough.
More self-fulfilling prophecy. No one develops for the Mac, so no one uses the Mac, so why should I develop for the Mac? Hmm, maybe if you did develop for Macs, there'd be more software that would attract more users, that would attract more developers.
If platform X (whatever that is) is the superior platform on its own merits, take the leap and build for it! Why just follow the herd? Think for yourself. Think Different.
Back on topic, though, the idea of loadable bundles is very cool. It sounds much more extendable and flexible than current methods in either Windows or Linux. If it works as seamlessly as it sounds it will, the user experience should be terrific.
This was meant as humor!
*sigh*
DAGNABBIT! That means we need to add another level to the DNS hierarchy for all the planets.
I can see it already. My domain name is going to grow to something like www.christtrek.web.us.te.
Of course, the question remains whether satellites fall under the domain of the primary body or get their own TLD. And someone's going to petition for "domain name rights" for asteroids and other minor planets.
My telnet app of choice is BetterTelnet, which is very common. It has an ssh option. It doesn't work on my freebie copy, and I so seldom need ssh that I haven't bothered to register it and get a full version.
MacOS X should be able to run Apache, since Darwin can. (Note the feather.)
I predict lots of Linux zealotry to follow this post. What the heck was c|net thinking? Thanks for stoking the fires, emmett.
Anyone with sense knows that Linux and MacOS have vastly different user bases. Comparing the two head to head just isn't going to work. Give it a year, though. With a BSD-based MacOS X, and a little more time for Linux application development, 2001 will probably be a great year for everybody concerned: the average end-user (Mac guy) is going to have excellent stability, and the uber-geek (Linux dude) will have kick-butt productivity apps. Best of both worlds!
You really believe that? It's all PR spin.
I did say undue restrictions and alterations. State election of senators seems a good idea to make the federal gov't more responsive to the states it's supposedly comprised of. I don't remember ever learning that's how it was originally done, and I'd be really interested to learn why it was changed. I've never agreed with the concept of income tax. I think many of the federal agencies that run our lives today are in violation of the 10th Amendment, which reserves rights not specifically outlined for the states.
Due process and the others you mention are all good things. But the gov't has enacted quite a few changes that are just as equally bad, IMO.
I knew as soon as I posted the message that someone was going to take it out of context. :-S
I've been looking at the Constitution Party as a way of defending my inalienable rights. The Constitution the way the framers intended it, without all the undue restrictions and alterations the past 200 years have added. Freedom is good.
I agree that iCab is looking really good. But as a Mac user too, I welcome anything that's not Micros~1, as do most /.-ers, I assume. This is why I have been trying every Mozilla milestone since M10, and why I'm an alpha tester for MacOpera. We need alternatives, we need choice, we need support for standards.
However, I agree that a nightly build is hardly newsworthy.
I grabbed all the OS schemes from kaleidoscope.net just for giggles. I didn't say I particularly liked the look of Win3.1, just that it was more usable because of more intuitive widgets (compared to MacOS X).
All the Kal schemes are going to be functional. (They're all the same MacOS after all.) That's not the point though. Usability and functionality are different beasts. I think everyone would agree that *n*x is more functional (can do more) than MacOS, but MacOS is more usable.
I doubt it. If *n*x hackers had really wanted to implement a clean, usable UI, they could have been taking pointers from MacOS all along. Has it been done yet? Nope. I doubt this will change just because the new MacOS has a BSD foundation.
I hope so. It would be best if there was some standard default terminal app, rather than everyone using a different one. If it sucks you can always get another, but sometimes it's easiest (especially if conversing with someone about what you're doing) if you can both get into the same environment.
The mouseover states mean that you have to mouse over them to get that info. A UI that requires interaction to get basic information isn't doing its job.
The "traffic light" metaphor is not the best. What does it mean to "go" a window, or "yield" it, or "stop" it? The metaphor does not directly relate to the object in question here (the window). A traffic light has three states and the window has three actions. That's about the extent of the similarity.
Look at the widgets in MacOS 8/9.
Close is a blank widget. No box, no window.
Max/min toggle is two different sized boxes nexted. Signifies the two sizes you toggle between by clicking it.
Windowshade (minimize) looks like a window with a title bar. Again it signifies the two states you toggle between.
Look at the widgets in Win3.1
Close is a minus sign. Pretty obvious to any 6-y.o.
Maximize is an up arrow. Makes the window bigger.
Minimize is a down arrow. Makes the window smaller.
Look at the widgets in Win95/98, even though their placement so close together is bad. I've misclicked too many times.
Close is an X, which is pretty intuitive, too!
Minimize looks like a button in the task bar, very small.
Full-screen/multi-window toggle button is the least intuitive until you try it, just as bad as the OS X color coded buttons.
Give users a picture, don't expect them to remember the associations of which color does what. Pictures are best. If you want to color code in addition to that, fine, but don't make it the primary distinguishing feature.
I couldn't agree with you more. If you have to remember how things work, that means you can forget how things work. The UI itself should tell you how it works. I think that Apple has taken a big step backward in the UI department. The first priority should have been just making the move to *n*x and leaving UI "refinements" until later. If they'd done that, maybe we'd have OS X already.
You're also right about the Win3.1 buttons. I use Kaleidoscope on my Mac, and use the Win3.1 scheme more than the Win95/98 schemes. The MacOS and Win95/98 widgets are probably about even, except the Mac has better placement. (Keep the close widget away from the others!)
AFAIC there's very little that needs to change from the way MacOS 8/9 worked. A real Trash can on the desktop, separate Apple/Application/Control menus instead of a Dock, spring-loaded icons, tabbed windows...these were all great features. A file browser is OK I guess, but I'd prefer if the current browsing system was an option too.
The one thing I'd add to the MacOS core UI would be virtual desktops. Multiple workspaces is something most Mac users could benefit from.
Absolutely. A flat naming system will end up helping absolutely no one. Those that propose abolishing TLDs are absolutely clueless.
What we really need is a good standardized selection of 2LDs to be under a country TLD. (If you're truly international and not based in any country you get .int - simple.) If one country (say the US) wants to let XYZ Corp register xyzcorp.com.us, xyzcorp.net.us, and xyzcorp.web.us, that's up to whomever is in charge of the .us TLD.
Personally I feel that proper usage of these 2LDs should be enforced. The web is not about trademarks. It's about finding information. The system should be helping you do that.
I've currently got a .org address but I always wanted to be a .web. It's just an online activity, I'm not a non-profit organization!
As far as switching to this new system, I think it should be an all-at-once deal. "At midnight GMT January 1, 2001, the new domain names will go into effect. Please make a note of it." If you allow a transition period, everyone's going to want to keep clinging to their old names.
What's the URL to the list you mention? I've been looking for that.
Heck, pixels and points suck. Use % or em.