"successfully diffuse the Cuban Missile Crisis"? I think you mean "defuse". In the context of missiles, diffuse has pretty much exactly the opposite meaning.
You deserve your +5 Insightful mod, but it is undeniable that Vista used to have a problem with basic file throughput (eg >1 hour to zip a folder that took a couple of minutes in WinRAR).
I now have a much faster machine than my first Vista nightmare, with SP1 of course. I use the XP theme and have turned off UAC (a major contributor to file-related trauma IME, including an utter inability to manipulate some files at all - eg click 'OK', 'Sure', 'Go Ahead', etc only to end up with a dialog that says "you do not have permission to modify that file"). Perhaps unsurprisingly I am not seeing major performance problems any more. But I am still interested in benchmarks such as these. I hope you're right to conclude that "the Windows team is actually optimizing the important parts of the system".
I am a web developer, quite proficient in javascript, and agree with the GP. No site should *require* js for navigation. There are established ways to mark up your menus, no matter how complex they may be, so that they may be navigated with js turned off while perhaps having enhanced usability or attractiveness for those who allow it to run. This is absolutely essential in the modern web: your most important visitor, the googlebot, doesn't run javascript - and obviously you want it to be able to follow links on your site.
IE 5 for Mac was actually more standards-compliant than its Windows equivalent, having been largely built from the ground up. Sure, it had bugs but what software doesn't? The main problem with IE, on both Mac and Windows, is that development was abandoned - forever on Mac, but for a good long while on Windows, too. This is why Microsoft lost their competitive edge (and then some) in the browser world.
Why doesn't this apply to software that is sold on physical media? I mean, I know I can sell my copy of Word 2000 on eBay if I uninstall it from my computer first, but I don't have to uninstall 'Harry Potter' from my brain before I sell the book.
Please don't call it "copyright theft"; that's RIAA-speak. Copyright theft would mean stealing the documents which prove you're the copyright owner, and making myself the one who has the exclusive right to make copies, or something like that. AFAIK nobody has every stolen anyone's copyright, though of course most of us have ignored the exclusive right to copy granted by law. That's called "infringing". The copyright holder still has the exclusive right under the law, it just doesn't amount to a hill o' beans any more due to the trivial nature of infringing.
Agreed. Surely, though, they must be worried Average Joe will assume that OS X is "three better" than Windows 7? If it was me I'd be tempted to call it "Windows Eleven".
This sounds very like the situation with WINE, though, whose devs are continually playing catch-up with the Windows API. I'd really like to know why you think they're diametrically opposed.
Reading the other comments on this page, it seems the biggest concern about the Mono project is not what compatibility it does or doesn't offer, but that it strays into proprietary areas of Microsoft's code - under the aegis of the MS-Novell patent agreement - and so has become a kind of outpost of Microsoft in the Linux world.
I'm not sure what the long-term implications of this are, but I still think it's better that Mono exists. Better that some work is required to port an app to Linux, than it remain completely locked into Windows.
Patent-wise, it would seem that WINE is even worse off. Google's lawyers appear to think they're in the clear supporting WINE, but MS could just be biding its time before hitting a major Linux port with a lawsuit.
I'm somewhat bewildered by this argument, but would really like to understand the issues better. From what little I know, I thought the.net framework was an open standard, that the Mono people didn't require any kind of license agreement with Microsoft, and that the project had the blessing and assistance of Microsoft engineers. (This was before Novell started funding the project, or whatever their exact relationship is.)
The argument that Mono provides a way for applications to move away from Linux is technically true, but laughable..net and its associated technologies like C# and ASP.NET are strongly associated with Windows, and whatever you may think of them, popular technologies. If you can run an asp.net website on a linux server that's got to be a good thing, hasn't it? (But then, I see from Wikipedia that ASP.NET is a patent grey area.)
Some reasoned argument, please, not blinkered ideological bullshit.
Not really, as the time for keyboard detection had usually already passed by the time it was displayed. You could plug it in, of course, but to no avail.
Hm, perhaps not, but it is infinitely better than not making it available at all. In fact, it would seem that to you "publishing" means making available to a limited number of people (who can get hold of the printed copy) rather than everybody.
Slashdot Mirror
"successfully diffuse the Cuban Missile Crisis"? I think you mean "defuse". In the context of missiles, diffuse has pretty much exactly the opposite meaning.
Nice point except that here on Slashdot we do not *act* at all, we just witter.
You deserve your +5 Insightful mod, but it is undeniable that Vista used to have a problem with basic file throughput (eg >1 hour to zip a folder that took a couple of minutes in WinRAR).
I now have a much faster machine than my first Vista nightmare, with SP1 of course. I use the XP theme and have turned off UAC (a major contributor to file-related trauma IME, including an utter inability to manipulate some files at all - eg click 'OK', 'Sure', 'Go Ahead', etc only to end up with a dialog that says "you do not have permission to modify that file"). Perhaps unsurprisingly I am not seeing major performance problems any more. But I am still interested in benchmarks such as these. I hope you're right to conclude that "the Windows team is actually optimizing the important parts of the system".
I am a web developer, quite proficient in javascript, and agree with the GP. No site should *require* js for navigation. There are established ways to mark up your menus, no matter how complex they may be, so that they may be navigated with js turned off while perhaps having enhanced usability or attractiveness for those who allow it to run. This is absolutely essential in the modern web: your most important visitor, the googlebot, doesn't run javascript - and obviously you want it to be able to follow links on your site.
IE 5 for Mac was actually more standards-compliant than its Windows equivalent, having been largely built from the ground up. Sure, it had bugs but what software doesn't? The main problem with IE, on both Mac and Windows, is that development was abandoned - forever on Mac, but for a good long while on Windows, too. This is why Microsoft lost their competitive edge (and then some) in the browser world.
Why doesn't this apply to software that is sold on physical media? I mean, I know I can sell my copy of Word 2000 on eBay if I uninstall it from my computer first, but I don't have to uninstall 'Harry Potter' from my brain before I sell the book.
Please don't call it "copyright theft"; that's RIAA-speak. Copyright theft would mean stealing the documents which prove you're the copyright owner, and making myself the one who has the exclusive right to make copies, or something like that. AFAIK nobody has every stolen anyone's copyright, though of course most of us have ignored the exclusive right to copy granted by law. That's called "infringing". The copyright holder still has the exclusive right under the law, it just doesn't amount to a hill o' beans any more due to the trivial nature of infringing.
Isn't it more:
1. Allow people to make identical copies of your doubloons
2. ???
3. Profit
I can't believe it's not better.
Surely the main privacy issue is the site reading back what it wrote? So it should be:
chmod -r ~/.macromedia
Let it write all it wants.
Is there a sensible reason to run Flashblock if you already use NoScript?
Actually, web developers hate you. We test specifically for your IP.
Someone has picked up the project and a new beta, which is compatible with FF3, is here.
Agreed. Surely, though, they must be worried Average Joe will assume that OS X is "three better" than Windows 7? If it was me I'd be tempted to call it "Windows Eleven".
Maybe to avoid confusion they should name it "X Windows".
I'm 41.
Perhaps the other telcos are just too paranoid about a phone that users will be able to easily screw about with
Paranoid about Android? (ducks)
You're right, and loathe though I am to admit it, Apple are capable of taking someone else's cool idea and frobbing the usability right up to eleven.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. It takes way more time to absorb information from a video - more than I'm usually willing to give.
If you must make a video, at least provide a transcript.
If you can't be bothered to learn python, you deserve everything you get. Hell is strongly-typed languages.
You ask the vendor politely to fix it. If they don't think its a problem, and its a serious enough issue, then you give them money to fix it.
BONGGGGG! you ever tried doing this with Microsft?
This sounds very like the situation with WINE, though, whose devs are continually playing catch-up with the Windows API. I'd really like to know why you think they're diametrically opposed.
Reading the other comments on this page, it seems the biggest concern about the Mono project is not what compatibility it does or doesn't offer, but that it strays into proprietary areas of Microsoft's code - under the aegis of the MS-Novell patent agreement - and so has become a kind of outpost of Microsoft in the Linux world.
I'm not sure what the long-term implications of this are, but I still think it's better that Mono exists. Better that some work is required to port an app to Linux, than it remain completely locked into Windows.
Patent-wise, it would seem that WINE is even worse off. Google's lawyers appear to think they're in the clear supporting WINE, but MS could just be biding its time before hitting a major Linux port with a lawsuit.
I'm somewhat bewildered by this argument, but would really like to understand the issues better. From what little I know, I thought the .net framework was an open standard, that the Mono people didn't require any kind of license agreement with Microsoft, and that the project had the blessing and assistance of Microsoft engineers. (This was before Novell started funding the project, or whatever their exact relationship is.)
The argument that Mono provides a way for applications to move away from Linux is technically true, but laughable. .net and its associated technologies like C# and ASP.NET are strongly associated with Windows, and whatever you may think of them, popular technologies. If you can run an asp.net website on a linux server that's got to be a good thing, hasn't it? (But then, I see from Wikipedia that ASP.NET is a patent grey area.)
Some reasoned argument, please, not blinkered ideological bullshit.
Not really, as the time for keyboard detection had usually already passed by the time it was displayed. You could plug it in, of course, but to no avail.
putting a PDF online is not publishing.
Hm, perhaps not, but it is infinitely better than not making it available at all. In fact, it would seem that to you "publishing" means making available to a limited number of people (who can get hold of the printed copy) rather than everybody.